Category Archives: Education / Youth

MAGA’s War On Education

Yesterday, I posted about the threat to higher education spearheaded by a Florida organization that proposes to redefine education as job training and to defund college courses that don’t promise graduates good salaries. 

The fact that the sponsoring organization is located in Florida shouldn’t surprise us: under DeSantis, that state is leading the way when it comes to MAGA’s war on education. He has already destroyed New College, which offended him by being “woke.”

As one observer recently wrote, DeSantis’ goal was to convert a liberal institution into a conservative one by using government money and purges. But by 2023, one third of its faculty had departed for jobs elsewhere, students were unable to find classes, and those with housing contracts were living in an airport hotel.

Today, New College spends more per student than any other institution of higher education in Florida–but the “return on investment” that so fascinates the Right has failed to materialize. The school has dropped 60 spots in the US News & World Report rankings, and its administration is currently trying to turn things around by–wait for it–recruiting student athletes and eliminating all-gender bathrooms. (In all fairness, maybe it will work. Indiana University’s winning football team has succeeding in diverting attention from the widely-criticised performance of IU’s president.)

Efforts to replace education with indoctrination aren’t limited to Florida. An article in Talking Points Memo notes that, when it comes to waging war on education, Trump appears to have taken yet another a page from the Confederacy.

In the early twentieth century, devotees of the ahistoric Lost Cause (it was all about state’s rights, not slavery) like the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) used their considerable political influence to revise history curricula. As the article reports, “For the next several decades, nearly 70 million Southern students were taught that the enslaved were actually servants and that the Confederates fought merely to preserve a Southern way of life.” The article traced the numerous efforts that commandeered state-level commissions and controlled the “history” taught to generations of students, particularly–but not exclusively– in the South.

Under President Donald Trump, this blueprint is being adapted and disseminated directly from the White House. The president in September announced the Department of Education’s partnership with dozens of conservative and far-right organizations including Turning Point USA, Moms for Liberty, and PragerU. The group will lead the Trump administration’s 250th anniversary civic education efforts “in schools across the nation.” Among the administration’s priorities? “Renewing patriotism,” and “advancing a shared understanding of America’s founding principles in schools across the nation.”…

Trump II is leaning heavily on the “again” part of his MAGA slogan by pushing policy that propels the nation backward. Experts told TPM that by partnering with right-wing groups, Trump and his allies are exercising control over the retelling of history in hopes of shaping the political opinions of the youngest Americans. With groups like TPUSA and the Heritage Foundation at the helm, the Trump administration threatens to propagandize public education for generations to come, and to revive the highly politicized, and ahistorical, curriculum campaigns of the early- and mid-20th centuries.

The linked article goes through the history of these (undeniably successful) efforts to distort history, and is very much worth reading in its entirety. It also highlights Trump’s partnership with PragerU, a conservative, anti-DEI media nonprofit, to produce “educational materials” about the Revolutionary War. 

PragerU has published materials with false claims about slavery and racism, echoing the ethos of the UDC, in the name of “American values.” Like the UDC and other 20th century education activists, the group has been lobbying to get its materials in schools for years. Under Trump, the architects of the next decades of public (and charter and private) schooling appear to be right-wing groups like the PragerU, the Heritage Foundation, and Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point.

If that isn’t chilling enough, a glance through the administration’s wider efforts to control what Americans learn is instructive. 

The administration’s numerous threats to museums and libraries are part of that war. At the end of December, The New York Times reported the destruction of NASA’s largest research library, described as “a facility that houses tens of thousands of books, documents and journals — many of them not digitized or available anywhere else.” According to a NASA spokesman, while some materials would be stored in a government warehouse, the rest would simply be tossed away. That library’s closure followed the shutdown of seven other NASA libraries around the country since 2022, including three this year. 

I think it was Santayana who warned that those who are ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it…

Comments

Defining “Return On Investment”

What is education, and why should we care? 

Well–as I have repeatedly argued–education is not job training. (Not that there is anything wrong with job training; it is obviously both useful and important.) Education, however, is a far more capacious concept. Familiarity with human history and with classic works of art and literature, appreciation of science and the scientific method, a basic understanding of the workings of government and the economy, the role played by the rule of law, and the ability to distinguish between logic and error–between fact and fantasy– are skills that dramatically  enhance an individual’s life and that not so incidentally make democratic regimes workable.

Which brings me to the utter idiocy of a proposal to defund college courses that don’t show a financial “return on investment.”

From a recent article in the Indianapolis Star, we learn that

An Indiana bill, written by a conservative think tank based in Florida, would deny grants and scholarships administered by the Indiana Commission for Higher Education to college degree programs that don’t provide a sufficient return on investment for graduates, just less than a year after lawmakers forced colleges to eliminate or merge hundreds of degrees.

Senate Bill 161 is based off of a similar provision in President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which blocks federal student loans and other aid from “low earning” degrees.

Words fail.

Proponents of this ridiculous measure rather obviously limit their definition of “education” to training programs that provide “real economic value.”  (Indiana’s Secretary of Education, Katie Jenner, has demonstrated her utter lack of qualification for that position by promoting the bill as “an accountability measure for schools.” )

Students whose major motive for continuing education is financial can easily find out which programs offer a monetary “return on investment.” Students and families that define “return” differently–who define it as an improved ability to understand and appreciate the world they live in– attend institutions of higher learning in order to explore the multiple gifts and lessons that previous generations have left them. For those students, the “return on investment” manifests itself in lifelong interest in the world they inhabit, and in increased understanding of –and ability to navigate– that world.

Ironically, even evaluating this proposal on its own terms shows how stupid it is.

Students who major in philosophy, the arts, or history may initially earn less than those taking courses tailored to the needs of current markets–but those essentially vocational education courses often turn out to provide considerably less financial security when market conditions change–which they do quite frequently. Meanwhile, a genuine education provides its recipients with an invaluable skill: the ability to learn, change and adapt to a rapidly changing world–including a rapidly evolving economic environment. 

This proposal isn’t the only indication that Indiana’s pathetic legislature is either unfamiliar with the concept of an education or actively hostile to it. Our legislative overlords either confuse education with job training, or they want to replace it with “Christian” indoctrination.

As the Indiana Citizen reports, among the bills filed for the 2026 legislative session were seven measures that would “incorporate Christian religious texts or beliefs commonly associated with Christian social teaching into public education and laws governing sex and gender — areas that have become recurring flashpoints at the Statehouse.”

Among the measures being advanced by Indiana’s culture warriors are bills mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, bills allowing chaplains to serve in public schools, and measures that would reshape civics education to emphasize “traditional values” and to restrict how gender is defined or recognized under state law. 

The Indiana Citizen reminds readers that, during the 2025 session, more than 20 House lawmakers co-authored a House Resolution urging legislators to “humbly submit” their work to Jesus Christ and govern according to biblical principles. The resolution confirmed the results of an examination by the Arnolt Center for Investigative Journalism at Indiana University  that found Christian nationalist ideology significantly influencing Hoosier legislation. (Separation of Church and State? Evidently, only people with actual educations understand the operation of the First Amendment…)

Ironically, our legislature’s inability to understand the dimensions of an actual education is a major reason for our lackluster economic performance. Viable businesses locate in areas where they can access an educated workforce–people who have learned how to think and how to learn.

Employers aren’t looking for people trained in narrow skill-sets who’ve been taught to submit to Jesus. 

Comments

Legal Nostalgia

A former student recently needed a copy of the syllabus I’d used in her graduate Law and Policy class back in 2010. When I reviewed it, I was struck by the changes effected by Trump, MAGA, and our current, corrupt Supreme Court majority. I became positively nostalgic for the legal environment of my time in the classrooom–nostalgic for the “black-letter law” and for precedents that were considered settled by my cohort of lawyers and law professors.

In that syllabus, I explained the course as follows:

___________

This course will examine the response of the American legal system, with its historic commitment to individual liberty and autonomy, to the growth of the administrative state and to an increasingly complex social environment characterized by pluralism and professional differentiation. We will discuss conflicting visions of American government and different approaches to public administration, and consider how those differences have affected the formation and implementation of public policy within our constitutional framework. Throughout, we will consider the constitutional and ethical responsibilities of public service—the origins of those responsibilities and their contemporary application.

While relatively few people will become public officials or public managers, all Americans are citizens, and most citizens will participate in the selection of public officials and will take positions on the policy issues of the day. Accordingly, this course is intended to introduce all students to the constituent documents that constrain public action and frame policy choices in the American system. These explorations will inevitably implicate political (although not necessarily partisan) beliefs about the proper role of the state, the health of civil society, and the operation of the market. To the extent possible, these theoretical and philosophical beliefs will be made explicit and their consequences for policy and public sector behavior examined. The goal is to help students understand why certain policy prescriptions and/or public actions attract or repel certain constituencies, and to recognize the ways in which these deeply held normative differences impact our ability to forge consensus around issues of public concern.

In the course of these inquiries, we will consider the implications of the accelerating pace of social change on issues of governance: globalization, especially as it affects considerations of legal jurisdiction; the increasing interdependence of nations, states, and local governmental units; the blurring of boundaries between government, for-profit and nonprofit organizations, and the effect of that blurring upon constitutional accountability; the role of technology; and the various challenges to law and public management posed by change and diversity, including the  impact and importance of competing value structures to the formation of law and policy.

By the end of the semester, students should be able to recognize legal and constitutional constraints on public service and policy formation, and to identify areas where public policy or administration crosses permissible boundaries. They should be able to recognize and articulate the impact of law and legal premises on culture and value formation, and to understand and describe the complex interrelation that results.

_________

During my years on the faculty teaching law and policy, it never occurred to me that I would live in an America where a President and virtually everyone in his administration would find the foregoing paragraphs incomprehensible–where individuals in positions of authority would reject–indeed, be unfamiliar with– the very concept of Constitutional restraints, let alone the existence and importance of civil society and/or competing arguments about the proper role of government.

I certainly wouldn’t have anticipated that so many of the ambitious politicians serving in the House and Senate–men and women presumably concerned for the national interest– would neuter themselves in slavish submission to a man whose ignorance of government and policy and whose intellectual and moral deficits were impossible to ignore even before the emergence of unmistakable dementia.

I would have rejected as fanciful the notion that a duly constituted United States Supreme Court would substitute partisan ideology and Christian nationalism for the rule of law, upending years of settled precedents and thoughtful, considered jurisprudence, not to mention the Separation of Powers that lies at the very heart of our constitutional architecture.

And yet here we are.

Forgive this somewhat whiney post, but coming across my old syllabus has made me nostalgic for the legal world I once inhabited. It wasn’t perfect, but it was infinitely preferable to our current reality, and we need to recover, reinstate, and improve it.

Comments

Misinformation As A “Wicked Problem”

I continue to be a “when” person, not an “if” person. What I mean by that is that I become more convinced every day that America will emerge from the disaster that is Trump and MAGA, and that the pertinent questions we will face have to do with how we will repair things when that day comes and we have to repair not just the damage done by the mad would-be king, but the structural flaws that enabled his unfit occupancy in the Oval Office.

Political scientists, sociologists, lawyers, law professors and a wide variety of experts in other fields are already offering their perspectives on how to address the Supreme Court’s corruption, protect Americans’ voting rights, jettison (or at least alter) the filibuster, and neuter the Electoral College– proposals intended to fix the structural weaknesses that have become all too obvious.

In most of these areas, we’ll undoubtedly argue about the approaches and details, but fixes are possible.

There is, however, one truly enormous problem that has no simple answer. As I have repeatedly noted on this platform, we live today in an absolute ocean of mis- and dis-information. There are literally thousands of internet sites created to tell us untruths that we want to believe, technologies that were created to mislead, cable and streaming channels in the business of reinforcing our preferred biases–even psuedo-education organizations that exist solely to propagandize our children. There is no simple remedy, no policy prescription that can “fix” the Wild West of our “information” environment–and virtually any effort to shut down propaganda will run afoul of the First Amendment and its essential Free Speech guarantees.

The widespread availability of misinformation is what academics call a “wicked problem.” Wicked problems have a number of characteristics that make them difficult to manage and– practically speaking– impossible to actually solve. They can’t be fully defined because their components are constantly changing; there’s no one “right” solution– possible solutions aren’t true or false, but rather good or bad, and what’s good for one aspect of the problem might exacerbate another part (in other words, the interconnections mean that solving one part of the problem can easily aggravate other parts); and there’s no clear point at which you can say the problem is solved.

Misinformation is a whole set of wicked problems– on steroids.

As a Brookings Institution publication put it some time back, 

Disinformation and other online problems are not conventional problems that can be solved individually with traditional regulation. Instead, they are a web of interrelated “wicked” problems — problems that are highly complex, interdependent, and unstable — and can only be mitigated, managed, or minimized, not solved.

The Brookings paper recommended development of what it called “an architecture” that would “promote collaboration and build trust among stakeholders.” It noted the availability of several models that currently promote collaboration among a number of  stakeholders, including the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) and the Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs). These and similar successful organizations have learned how to adapt and innovate, and have focused on trust-building and information-sharing.

Any effective effort to counter misinformation and propaganda will need to go beyond the creation of other, similar organizations. If and when we re-institute a rational government and are gifted with a working Congress, there will be a role for (hopefully thoughtful) regulation. And of course, long term, the most effective mechanism must be education. Students need to be taught to recognize the difference between credible and non-credible sources, shown how to spot the markers of conspiracy theories and propaganda, and given tools to distinguish between deep fakes and actual photography.

The crux of the problem, of course, is that all-too-human desire to justify one’s particular beliefs and biases–the allure of “information” that confirms what that individual wants to believe. We all share that impulse, and its existence is what makes the manipulation of data and the creation of “alternative” facts so attractive. It’s also what feeds “othering,” bigotries and self-righteousness.

The persistence of that very human desire is what makes misinformation–also known as propaganda–such a wicked problem.

Comments

Onward “Christian” Soldiers

It has become increasingly obvious that there are two kinds of Christian–the ones who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, and the ones who use the label in their quest for political hegemony. I identify the latter group by placing quotation marks around the word Christian.

And that latter group is on the march, both locally and nationally.

In Indiana, where we have long had a legislature dismissive of the First Amendment’s Separation of Church and State, we currently have a Lieutenant Governor who is an out and proud “Christian” nationalist. And in Zionsville, a bedroom community north of Indianapolis, a newly formed organization called “Zionsville Men of Truth” wants the local library to stop endorsing “LGBTQ+ ideology,” by removing books and limiting accessibility to “GLBT inclusive” events like Pride.

According to the Indianapolis Star, the group wants to protect children and teens from “content that blurs moral boundaries or exposes children to adult themes.” And of course, they’ll decide where those “moral boundaries” lie.

As the article notes, a number of Republican-led states have experienced book banning and other restrictions of access, thanks to lawmakers’ passage of legislation making it easier to do so. “Men of Truth” is described as a group of local religious men who “want to see that truth be proclaimed in our communities and to restore those biblical values that our nation was founded upon.”

It’s their “truth” that must be proclaimed of course. And permit me to observe that Madison and Jefferson, among others, would be surprised to find that they’d crafted the Constitution using “biblical values”…

It isn’t just Indiana. Other Red states are experiencing equally “Christian” episodes.

There’s Oklahoma, for example, a state that ranks 50th out of 51 in education. A recent report from the New York Times set this former academic’s hair on fire.

At the University of Oklahoma, a student claimed to be the victim of religious discrimination because her psychology instructor gave her a zero on an essay in which she cited the Bible and called “the lie that there are multiple genders”  “demonic.” The instructor explained that she had deducted points because the essay “does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive.”

Those certainly sound to me like permissible reasons to deduct points, but–hey! Onward “Christian” warriors–the University has suspended the instructor. Not only that, they’ve assured the student that her poor mark on the essay won’t affect her grade. She is identified as a psychology major and pre-med student who intends to go to medical school. (The prospect of a doctor who elevates “biblical truth” over science is rather chilling…)

The student’s cause was taken up by Turning Point USA, which has posted about it on X (of course!) and drawn 40 million views and thousands of online comments. (Granted, many of those views were probably bots, but still…) Oklahoma’s “Christian” governor weighed in, mischaracterizing the university’s reaction as protection of the First Amendment’s Free Speech provisions, calling the situation at the university “deeply concerning,” and demanding a review by the university’s regents to “ensure other students aren’t unfairly penalized for their beliefs,”

This ridiculous framing of the issue evidently forbids instructors from penalizing answers that are non-responsive to the questions, at least if the student invokes “Christianity.” As even a conservative political scientist observed, evidently “You have to pass students who only cite religious faith for their opinions now or they’re victims of discrimination.”

In this case, the class had been assigned a scholarly article on “gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health,” and told to write a “thoughtful discussion” of some aspect of it. The student wrote that “The article discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms. I do not necessarily see this as a problem. God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose.”

When her instructor failed to accept a response that relied on “biblical truth” rather than psychological research, the student contacted Ryan Walters, currently the chief executive of something called “the Teacher Freedom Alliance.” Walters called the student “an American hero,” and said that any university employees who were involved in giving her a bad grade should be fired.

It may explain Oklahoma’s education ranking to note that Walters recently stepped down as the Oklahoma state superintendent of schools.

Comments