Archives for category: Extremism
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Texas Superintendent Goes Viral in Defense of Teachers, Books, and Public Schools!

By dianeravitch
September 19, 2025 //
10

John Kuhn is the superintendent of schools in Abilene, Texas. He was hired by the Abilene school board in April 2024. He previously served as superintendent in three small districts in Texas. The Abilene board introduced him this way

Dr. John Kuhn brings 27 years of proven experience in public education to Abilene ISD. Prior to joining the Abilene ISD team, Dr. Kuhn most recently served as Superintendent of Schools for Mineral Wells ISD. He has also served as superintendent of Perrin-Whitt CISD and as a high school principal, assistant principal, teacher, and bus driver in the Mineral Wells and Graford Independent School Districts.

I met John Kuhn at a conference of the Network for Public Education about a dozen years ago. At that time, he was superintendent of the Perrin-Whitt Distrist, which has about 320 students, half of whom are economically disadvantaged.

John is one of the most eloquent champions of public education that I’ve ever met. I remember him saying, “Send me the kids you don’t want. Send me the kids who don’t speak English. Send me the kids who are struggling to learn. Send me the kids with disabilities. I’m in a public school and we will teach them all.” Or words to that effect. I’m hoping he will be a keynote speaker at our next conference in Houston in April 2026. He’s the leader we need!

He posted this letter on his Facebook page and it drew a massive response and national attention.

Gosh where to begin? I’m eligible to retire in January, and I don’t want to because I feel like I owe the good people who hired me and this great community at least a few years of blood sweat and tears. I work for a great school board in a city I’ve absolutely fallen in love with. But holy moly do I want to pack it in right now. The burden is heavy.

Yesterday I spent hours at an update listening to the impacts on teachers and admins at public schools of bill after bill passed by our lege. Did you know that one bill says teachers are going to be required to catalogue every book in their classrooms? Kindergarten teachers have hundreds of tiny books. With what time? When?

Did you know that another bill says nurses can’t provide any health care whatsoever and counselors can’t provide any emotional support whatsoever without a written permission slip from parents? The bill language is so poorly written that—despite what it clearly says in black and white English—the bill author sent out a clarification saying nurses can provide a band-aid to a kid who is bleeding. He wouldn’t have to send out a clarification if they wouldn’t pass dumb bills—but legislators have been convinced by political groups who hate public schools that everyone inside them are wicked, evil people.

Did you know about the other new bill that says school administrators who work on the side as refs or one-act-play judges at any school anywhere are subject to a $10k fine per offense for working those jobs if they each individually don’t present a contract to their school board.

That doesn’t apply to me, but I know tons of APs and principals who ref and judge student drama contests. In fact, there’s a huge shortage of both, so if they didn’t do it, we’d be in an even bigger bind in trying to put on games. Again, the bill author had to put out a “clarification” claiming the bill doesn’t mean what it clearly says.

Because they refused to listen to the input of our educator groups—groups, by the way, that they are trying to get defunded because they consider them “taxpayer funded lobbyists” for representing school districts and municipalities.

There is a political movement to pull the teeth of local officials at schools and on city councils and county commissioners courts so that all we have is centralized state leadership. So local yokels like yours truly have to be continually demonized and legislated into submission.

I haven’t even talked about vouchers draining our public schools of resources so those education dollars can go toward private schools that aren’t subject to the crushing bureaucracy. I haven’t event talked about the new testing bill—the one that replaces STAAR with the 3x per year Death STAAR that, like its predecessor tests is solely owned and controlled by the TEA commissioner and is not norm-referenced so Texas student results can be compared to other states, which would keep things honest and prevent the manipulation of student results for political narrative-building.

Anyway, I go to a conference all day listening to this stuff the day after Republican Charlie Kirk is murdered and months after a Democratic state senator is murdered, and I just keep thinking, is it worth it? I can retire and keep to myself until I die of old age. I can just fish every single day. I can travel. I can camp. I can sleep in.

And I get to my hotel room and find some social media commenter calling my teachers “demons” because they assigned an chapter of the amazing book Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close as a reading passage for a freshman honors English class. This is a book written in the voice of a nine-year-old boy who lost his dad on 9/11 in the terrorist attack on the twin towers. It’s an award winning book. But the passage has the word “shit” in it. And it has a vulgar term that I’m told the teacher was unfamiliar with it. And it has a crude joke about talking butts, which I was a nine-year-old boy and that’s the kind of crudeness we giggle at, so the author was pretty spot on. It also has the word “pussy” but that was what the kid called his cat, but the Facebook post highlighted it as part of making a case that this book was inappropriate.

Thing is, it’s likely valid that this book should be restricted to older kids—17 and 18 year olds. It’s worth noting that this was assigned to only the honors kids because the other passage that the class was reading—also related to 9/11–was at too easy a reading level. So these poor teachers are trying to find something for advanced kids to read, and they don’t have time, and they’re making a good faith effort to push kids to Meets and Masters because they care (and if our A-F grade is too low, there is outrage over that too). And they pick this award-winning book. They decide one “shit” is tolerable. They aren’t offended by the word “pussy” because it literally isn’t a bad word in the context. They get it approved by a colleague.

And they are called “DEMONS.” (Ironically, in the comments of the outrage post, they’re also called “assholes,” which is literally worse than “anus,” which is one of the words the parent highlighted and took offense to, but nobody scolded the commenter for that vulgarity. What’s good for the goose… Commenters also typed “wtf” and “WTH,” which mean “what the fuck” and “what the hell” but nobody accused them of “grooming” children. Selective outrage, anyone.

Who needs this? Is everybody serious? Does everyone just feel absolutely compelled to post their moral superiority online by attacking perceived enemies they’ve never met or shared a meal with.

Our country is no longer capable of living in community. We’ve been driven to our corners. It is barely possible to be a public servant anymore. I totally get why our city manager retired.

My teachers aren’t demons. They may have made a mistake in assigning this book to 15-year-olds rather than 17-year-olds, and for that there are people online saying they need to be fired. Today Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close is likely temporarily coming off our library shelves while we review our book challenge policies. Read the book. It’ll make you cry.

We can’t win in public ed anymore. This is absolutely ridiculous. If I make it to December, it’s gonna be a miracle. I don’t need your sympathy replies, either. I’ll hang it up when I have to for my family and my health, and I’ll stick it out if I feel like I want to. In the meantime, I just want you to know I’m sick of politicians playing divisive politics and leaving local public servants to clean up the mess. Public schools are apolitical entities with the job of teaching kids to think critically and become awesome humans. We aren’t perfect. We have missteps, because we are human organizations. But don’t call my teachers DEMONS while you cuss in the comments.

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Censorship, Courage, Democracy, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Resistance, Supporting public schools, Teachers, Texas

Trump Mob Cancels Jimmy Kimmel

By dianeravitch
September 18, 2025 //
35

Oliver Darcy, media journalist, wrote in his blog Status about the events leading ABC to indefinitely cancel Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show. If you care about the state of our democracy, it’s a scary story. Who will be silenced next?

The concept of free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, is in jeopardy. The Trump administration celebrates every triumph in their ongoing campaign to censor speech that they don’t like. They have made clear that they would like to stifle all criticism and dissent.

Trump issued an executive order on his first day in office, January 20, 2025, ordering the protection of free speech and an end to federal government censorship. The order was titled “Restoring Freedom Of Speech And Ending Federal Censorship.” Hahaha. The joke’s on us.

The point of guaranteeing freedom of speech is not to protect uncontroversial speech. Such speech needs no protection. It’s to protect speech that offends someone, speech that is unpopular, speech that is despised by the powerful.

Please join me and write to the chairman of Disney, which owns ABC: Robert.Iger@Disney.com

Darcy writes:

Inside ABC, emergency meetings were convened after the FCC chair’s Jimmy Kimmel threat, with the late-night host ready to respond on-air—but Disney brass ultimately decided to bench the marquee talent instead.

On Wednesday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr dropped in via webcam for an appearance on far-right personality Benny Johnson’s program. That the FCC chairman would sit down with Johnson at all was remarkable in itself. Johnson has built his brand trafficking in MAGA memes, misinformation, and cultural outrage; not typically the type of programming a government official would want to lend their credibility to. In any case, it wasn’t the venue alone that raised eyebrows. It was what Carr said once the program started taping. 

Speaking to Johnson’s audience, Carr lashed out at ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a remark the comedian made during his Monday monologue. Kimmel had said, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” The day after Kimmel’s comment, authorities released the suspected killer’s messages, which showed he held disdain for the “hate” Kirk espoused. Notably, Kimmel never stated that the suspect was on the right, but that is how many interpreted the remarks. 

Indeed, Carr took significant issue with the comment, first dismissing Kimmel as “frankly talentless” on Johnson’s show. He then went further, delivering a naked threat aimed at Disney, ABC’s parent company: “This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” he said. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” It was an extraordinary moment: a sitting FCC chairman openly pressuring a network to silence one of its marquee talents. 

Carr’s appearance set off an immediate cascade of events inside ABC. According to people familiar with the matter, the network held a series of emergency meetings to discuss how to respond. Kimmel wanted to address the situation on his program Wednesday night. In fact, I’m told that he had even written a script about how he could respond to the controversy—but ultimately Disney brass wasn’t comfortable with it. Amid the meetings, Nexstar, the largest owner of local television stations in the country, decided it would decline to air “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for the “foreseeable future.” Ultimately, Disney boss Bob Iger and Disney Entertainment chief Dana Walden, among others, made the decision to pull the program from the network while it determined next steps.

ABC then issued a seven-word statement: “‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ will be preempted indefinitely,” a spokesperson said, declining to elaborate on the shock decision. For an acclaimed late-night show long considered a staple of the network’s entertainment offerings, the sudden removal was stunning, even though I’m told the hope is that Kimmel will eventually return.

Donald Trump was also quick to celebrate the announcement, writing on his social platform: “Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible.” The emboldened Trump also sent a clear message to Comcast and NBCUniversalbrass: “That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!”

Carr, of course, was also delighted by the outcome. Reached by Status via text on Wednesday evening, he responded to a request for comment with a smiling emoji: “😀.” When pressed for words rather than symbols, Carr shot back that Status “has plenty of room for emojis.” He also singled out Nexstar on social media for praise, commending the company for “doing the right thing” by refusing to carry Kimmel’s program. The reaction would normally be considered inappropriate gloating from a regulator whose remarks had, in the span of hours, helped trigger the cancellation of one of network television’s best-known shows.

Nevertheless, the implications are seismic. Iger blinked, capitulating to political pressure from the Trump administration. The move sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry, where executives and talent agents privately expressed alarm about what it signaled for creatives moving forward. “Clients are texting me scared,” one prominent agent told me in the hours after the announcement, describing a climate of growing unease and concern over what could be next. “This one is really bad,” another media executive texted me, adding that it “feels like an inflection point.” Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic commissioner at the FCC, noted that the Trump administration “is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression.”

Of course, lurking beneath the surface are transactional calculations. Nexstar is working to merge with TEGNA, in a deal that requires FCC approval. Meanwhile, Disney’s decision comes as the company is working to complete a high-stakes deal with the NFL, one that is crucial to the future of ESPN. Securing those rights requires federal regulatory approval, and the company can hardly afford to pick a fight with Trump’s Washingtonwhile the deal hangs in the balance. By sidelining Kimmel, Iger may have protected Disney’s larger business interests. But the cost is a frightening message to the creative community and a major blow to free expression.

To a degree, what we’re also seeing is media executives reckoning with the reality that in 2025, with the country so polarized and in various information silos, there is no way to please everyone. Iger’s decision has sparked fierce backlash from the left and moderates, who are rightly outraged by Disney’s capitulation, even as Trump’s supporters cheer the move as a victory. Once upon a time, companies like Disney prided themselves on speaking to the whole country. That is no longer possible.

It goes without saying, but the Kimmel episode represents yet another example of a major media corporation bending the knee to Trump—and it comes at a time that the president appears more emboldened to target speech he dislikes. Earlier this week, Attorney General Pam Bondi bluntly threatened that the administration would “absolutely target” those engaging in what she described as “hate speech,” in the wake of Kirk’s killing. She quickly attempted to walk it back, but Trump himself then threatened ABC directly, singling out journalist Jonathan Karl as a possible target.

The irony, of course, can’t be missed. For years, Republicans cast themselves as the party of free speech, railing against what they derided as “cancel culture” from the left. Yet what we are witnessing now is a full-scale cancel campaign led from the right, with the force of federal government power behind it. The same voices that once claimed to defend open expression are now actively weaponizing regulatory threats to silence critics.

And Kimmel is hardly the only casualty. Paramount abruptly canceled Stephen Colbert’s program earlier this year, citing financial concerns, but the decision—coming against one of Trump’s sharpest critics—was obviously related to his politics. Now Disney has benched Kimmel. The result is a media landscape where critics of the president are vanishing from broadcast television one by one, not because audiences have turned away, but because executives fear government retribution. The message is chilling: in Trump’s America, even the most powerful media companies will silence their own talent if it keeps them in the administration’s good graces. It is a remarkable, and deeply alarming, moment for free speech.

The right-wing Sinclair Broadcast Group, the owner of dozens of ABC affiliates, issued a press release calling on Jimmy Kimmel to make a “direct apology” and donate to Charlie Kirk’s family and Turning Point USA. It also plans to air a “special in remembrance” of Kirk on Friday in the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” time slot. [BusinessWire]

The Writers Guild of America issued this statement:

WGA Statement on ABC’s Decision to

Pull Jimmy Kimmel Live!

The right to speak our minds and to disagree with each other – to disturb, even – is at the very heart of what it means to be a free people. It is not to be denied. Not by violence, not by the abuse of governmental power, nor by acts of corporate cowardice.

As a Guild, we stand united in opposition to anyone who uses their power and influence to silence the voices of writers, or anyone who speaks in dissent. If free speech applied only to ideas we like, we needn’t have bothered to write it into the Constitution. What we have signed on to – painful as it may be at times – is the freeing agreement to disagree.

Shame on those in government who forget this founding truth. As for our employers, our words have made you rich.

Silencing us impoverishes the whole world.

The WGA stands with Jimmy Kimmel and his writers.

Categories Censorship, Ethics, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Media, Trump

Department of Education Will Violate Federal Law by Joining with Right-Wing Groups to Create a Civics Curriculum

By dianeravitch
September 18, 2025 //
14

The U.S. Department of Education announced that it will work with numerous rightwing groups to design a civics curriculum. It will, of course, be patriotic. It will also be illegal. Since 1970, federal law prohibits any federal official from being involved in curriculum in any way.

The law is clear. Federal officials are prohibited from seeking to influence or direct curriculum in any way.

The federal law is the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232a.

This section says:

“No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system…”

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon probably doesn’t know that she is breaking the law. Why doesn’t the legal staff at of ED warn her?

Justine McDaniel and Laura Meckler of The Washington Post reported:

The Education Department said Wednesday that it is partnering with conservative organizations to present educational programming about patriotism, liberty and what it described as American values, as part of the observation of America’s 250th anniversary next year.

The initiative is led by the America First Policy Institute, a right-leaning group founded by senior veterans of President Donald Trump’s first-term administration. It convened 40 other conservative organizations on Wednesday, including Turning Point USA, Hillsdale College, the Heritage Foundation and Moms for Liberty, to begin planning. Christian evangelical groups, such as the Faith and Freedom Coalition, are also participating.

Called the America 250 Civics Education Coalition, the initiative was billed by the Education Department as an effort to renew patriotism and advance “a shared understanding of America’s founding principles in schools across the nation.”

The department provided few details about what the programming would entail and how it would reach students or schools. The coalition appears to mark another step in the Trump administration’s effort to push a rosy narrative about American history and to use education about civics, a traditionally nonpartisan topic, as a vehicle for that mission.

“We are proud to announce this coalition to ensure every young American understands the beauty of our nation and is equipped with the civic knowledge required to contribute meaningfully to its future,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon, a former chair of the board at the America First Policy Institute, said in a statement.

Categories Civics, Curriculum, Disruption, Ethics, Extremism

Trump Goes to War….Against American Cities

By dianeravitch
September 17, 2025 //
10

Trump posted this meme on his Internet site, “Truth Social.” He intended to invade Chicago but changed his plans after massive pushback from the people of Chicago and the Governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker.

His next target is Memphis, where federal intervention has been welcomed by Republican Governor Bill Lee, but not the mayor of Memphis.

Remember when Republicans used to believe in local control and small government? I do.

The meme stirred outrage and controversy, as he intended. Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois said in a tweet that he should not wear a military cap since he dodged the draft five times. Stolen valor, she said. Duckworth was a helicopter pilot in Iraq who lost both legs when her copter was shot down.

From the web:

She lost her right leg near the hip and her left leg below the knee from injuries sustained on November 12, 2004, when the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter she was co-piloting was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade fired by Iraqi insurgents. She was the first American female double amputee from the Iraq War.

Trump, the war-lover, posted this meme:

So far as I know, no one asks what the point of this action is. Will the Guard stay for 30 days, then leave? What happens when the National Guard is withdrawn? Will crime return to previous levels? Will the President station the Guard in every big city indefinitely? Is this all a diversion from the Epstein files, inflation, other bad economic indicators?

Categories Chicago, Democracy, Extremism, Trump

Florida: “We Have Accountability for Food Stamps, Why Not for School Vouchers?”

By dianeravitch
September 17, 2025 //
9

Scott Maxwell is my favorite opinion writer at The Orlando Sentinel. He always makes sense, in a state led by a Governor and Leguslature that make no sense at all.

In this column, he asks a straightforward question: Why is there no accountability for school vouchers? Why are taxpayers shelling out money for substandard schools? Why is money diverted from public schools to pay for schools where the curriculum is based on the Bible, not facts?

Maxwell writes:

Florida recently joined about a dozen states in passing new rules that say participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, can’t use their vouchers on junk food.

I think that makes sense to most people. This program, after all, is supposed to provide “nutrition” to people in need, most of whom are children, elderly or people with disabilities.
Basically, if taxpayers are providing $330 a month for basic food needs, that money shouldn’t be used on Red Bull and Oreos.

So now let’s take that a step further.

Taxpayer money also shouldn’t be used to send students to the junk-food equivalent of school — places that hire “teachers” without degrees, use factually flawed curriculum or that hand out A’s to every kid, regardless of what they actually learn, just to make their parents feel better.

Just like with food stamps, taxpayers have a right to know that the money they’re providing for schools is actually funding a quality education.

Yet in Florida that is not the case. Here, the voucher-school system is the Wild West with a lack of accountability and scary things funded with your tax dollars.

The Orlando Sentinel has documented this mess for years through its “Schools without Rules” investigation that found taxpayer-funded voucher schools where:


• “Teachers” lacked degrees or any kind of basic teaching certification
• Finances were so disastrous that schools actually shut down in the middle of the school year, stranding families and students
• Science classes taught students that dinosaurs roamed the earth alongside man, and history lessons claimed slavery and segregation weren’t really all that bad

• Administrators refused to admit students with disabilities or who had gay parents
• Parents filed complaints that included “Cleaning lady substituting for teacher,” “They don’t provide lunch and they don’t even have a place to eat” and “I don’t see any evidence of academics”

I don’t care how pro-school choice you are, tax dollars shouldn’t fund that kind of nonsense.

Some of these fly-by-night schools set up in strip malls seem to thrive because they tell parents what they want to hear — that their kids who were struggling in public schools magically became straight-A students at voucher schools with little to no standards or legitimate measures of success.

Well, that’s the educational equivalent of junk food. And taxpayers wouldn’t fund that kind of nonsense if the state enacted basic accountability measures.

Namely, all voucher-eligible schools should be required to:

• Publish graduation rates and nationally accepted test scores
• Hire teachers who are certified or at least have a college degree
• Disclose all the curriculum being taught
• Ban discrimination

Most good schools already do this. Think about it: what kind of reputable school wouldn’t agree to hire qualified teachers? Or wouldn’t want the public to see what kind of test scores their students produce?

If you want to send your kid to a school that’s unwilling to clear those ground-level hurdles, you shouldn’t expect taxpayers to fund it.
Similarly, if you want to run a school that refuses to serve kids in wheelchairs or who are gay, you shouldn’t fund your discrimination with money that belongs to the people against whom you’re discriminating.

In Florida, some of the worst voucher schools are faith-based. But so are some of the best. Parents and taxpayers deserve to see the difference — the test scores that show whether students are actually learning.

Many faith-based schools embrace science and history. But some try to replace proven facts with their own beliefs or opinions, using “biology” books that claim evolution data is false and “history” books that try to put sunny spins on slavery and segregation.

The people who defend — and profit off — Florida’s unregulated voucher system usually cite “freedom” and “parental rights” as a justification for unfettered choice. But you know good and well that virtually every other taxpayer-funded system has sensible guardrails.

You can’t take Medicaid money to a witch doctor or a psychic “healer.” And just like we don’t give parents the “choice” to use SNAP vouchers to buy their kids Snicker bars, they don’t deserve the “freedom” to take money meant to provide a quality education to a school that can prove it’s providing one.


Basic transparency and accountability measures are needed for any program to be effective. So whenever you hear anyone protesting them, you have to wonder what it is they don’t want you to see.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Corruption, Curriculum, Deregulation, Disruption, Extremism, Florida, Funding, Lies, Privatization, Propaganda, Vouchers

Two Federal Judges Block Trump Effort to Exclude Undocumented Children from Headstart

By dianeravitch
September 16, 2025 //
4

Erica Meltzer of Chalkbeat reports that two federal judges issued injunctions against a new Trump rule that bars undocumented children from enrolling in Headstart. The rule may seem gratuitously cruel to some, but it’s business-as-usual for Trump. Interestingly, the judges who issued the rulings are both Republican appointees, one by George W. Bush and the other by Donald J. Trump. (How did they slip past Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell)?

The Trump administration’s effort to prevent undocumented immigrant children from enrolling in Head Start preschool programs is on hold nationwide after federal judges issued injunctions in two separate lawsuits. 

The Department of Health and Human Services in July declared that Head Start, along with a wide swath of health care services and workforce training programs, should be considered public benefit programs, a category of programs only available to U.S. citizens and immigrants with particular statuses, such as legal permanent residents and refugees. 

Undocumented immigrants are already excluded from most welfare programs, but the rule changes abruptly expanded the list of programs that would need to verify participants’ immigration status.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued to block the rule change on behalf of four state Head Start associations as well as some parent groups. Twenty states and the District of Columbia filed their own lawsuit. 

In both cases, federal judges ruled this week that the Trump administration had not followed appropriate procedures for changing rules; that in some cases the rule changes appeared to go against Congressional intent; and that providers, families, and state governments would suffer significant harm if the rules were allowed to go into effect.

Categories Childhood, Pre-K, K, Cruelty, Extremism, Immigration, Trump

Fascism Alert! JD Vance and Stephen Miller Describe Plans to Crack Down on Liberal Groups as “Domestic Terrorists”

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2025 //
16

Have you heard of Horst Wessel? He was a 22-year-old member of the Nazi paramilitary who was assassinated in 1930 by two Comminists. After his death, his name became a propaganda prop for the Nazi party. Lyrics that Wessel had written were turned into the Nazi anthem and called “The Horst Wessel Song.”

I thought of Wessel when I saw how the Trump administration is turning Charlie Kirk into a symbol of leftwing, liberal perfidy that must and will be punished.

Charlie had extremist views about race, immigration, and gender, but he was no Nazi.

I discovered that I was not the only person who was struck by the parallel between Wessel and Kirk, not in what they did, but in how their legacy was used by powerful men. Benjamin Cohen and Hannah Feuer wrote in the Forward, an independent Jewish journal, about the comparison. They interviewed Daniel Siemens, a historian who wrote a book about Wessel. Siemens insisted that the two men should not be compared because Wessel engaged in violence and Kirk did not.

Cohen and Feuer conclude:

The rush to invoke Horst Wessel’s name reflects two realities. On the right, there’s a dangerous willingness among some extremists to valorize Nazi symbols. On the left, a fear that Kirk’s death will be used to erode civil liberties.

It is time to worry about the erosion of civil liberties.

Today, JD Vance became host of “The Charlie Kirk Show.” Among his guests was Stephen Miller, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief ideologue. Miller is known for his hatred of immigrants.

The New York Times just reported that they discussed their plans to crack down on liberal groups, whom they hold responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk. They believe this even though no evidence has emerged tying the alleged assassin Tyler Robinson to any group, right or left. No one can say whether Tyler moved to the left or to the right of Kirk. The Utah governor said Tyler had a “leftist ideology,” but Kirk had lately been feuding with far-right white nationalist Nick Fuentes, who accused Charlie of being too moderate, a sell-out.

Without any evidence, Vance and his colleagues are forging ahead on the assumption that liberal groups indoctrinated and funded Tyler Robinson.

Katie Rogers and Zolan Kanno Youngs wrote in today’s Times:

Trump administration officials on Monday responded to the activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination by threatening to bring the weight of the federal government down on what they alleged was a left-wing network that funds and incites violence, seizing on the killing to make broad and unsubstantiated claims about their political opponents.

Investigators were still working to identify a motive in Mr. Kirk’s killing, but the Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, has said that the suspect had a “leftist ideology” and that he acted alone.

The White House and President Trump’s allies suggested that he was part of a coordinated movement that was fomenting violence against conservatives — without presenting evidence that such a network existed. America has seen a wave of violence across the political spectrum, targeting Democrats and Republicans.

On Monday, two senior administration officials, who spoke anonymously to describe the internal planning, said that cabinet secretaries and federal department heads were working to identify organizations that funded or supported violence against conservatives. The goal, they said, was to categorize left-wing activity that led to violence as domestic terrorism, an escalation that critics said could lay the groundwork for crushing anti-conservative dissent more broadly.

Open the link to finish reading.

I wonder which groups will be targeted. The ACLU? Marc Elias’s “Democracy Docket”? Bloggers like those at The Contrarian, The Bulwark, Rick Wilson, Paul Krugman, Joyce Vance, Heather Cox Richardson, Mary Trump, Norman Eisen of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and dozens of others. Will they try again to shut down Act Blue, which many Democrats use as their primary fundraising platform?

Hang on to your hat. Our political system is in for some difficult, challenging times.

Categories Censorship, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, History, Trump, Vance, J.D.

The Campaign to Punish Those Who Did Not Mourn Charlie Kirk’s Death

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2025 //
30

People who did not express genuine grief at the murder of Charlie Kirk are in serious trouble. Some have been fired or suspended. Some have been harassed for their views. Before anyone attacks me for acknowledging this phenomenon, let me point out that I did deplore his murder while making clear that I share none of his views.

Reuters reported on the efforts to ferret out and punish those who did not react to Charlie’s assassination in the correct manner.

At least 15 people have been fired or suspended from their jobs after discussing the killing online, according to a Reuters tally based on interviews, public statements and local press reports. The total includes journalists, academic workers and teachers. On Friday, a junior Nasdaq employee was fired over her posts related to Kirk.

Others have been subjected to torrents of online abuse or seen their offices flooded with calls demanding they be fired, part of a surge in right-wing rage that has followed the killing.

Some Republicans want to go further still and have proposed deporting Kirk’s critics from the United States, suing them into penury or banning them from social media for life.

“Prepare to have your whole future professional aspirations ruined if you are sick enough to celebrate his death,” said conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a prominent ally of President Donald Trump and one of several far-right figures who are organizing digital campaigns on X, the social media site, to ferret out and publicly shame Kirk’s critics.

CNN reported that there is a coordinated campaign to punish those who speak ill of Charlie on social media.

Indeed there is. It’s called “Expose Charlie’s Murderers” on Twitter, and it invites everyone to report the names and screenshots of anyone who posted sentiments critical of Charlie or comments applauding his murder.

The website opens with this message:

Charlie Kirk was murdered.

Is an employee or a student of yours supporting political violence online?

Look them up on this website.

Send information on anyone celebrating Charlie’s death.

Follow us on X/Twitter: @forcharliekirk1

ATTENTION:
This website will soon be converted into a searchable database of over 30,000 submissions, filterable by general location and job industry. This is a permanent and continuously-updating archive of Radical activists calling for violence.

This is the largest firing operation in history.

Since his admirers on all ends of the political spectrum have expressed admiration for his commitment to discussion, debate, and dissent, it is ironic that not only his friends but government officials like Pete Hegseth are searching social media for people they can punish for saying “the wrong thing” (e.g. criticizing Charlie’s views or not mourning his death).

Charlie, a high school graduate, was contemptuous of higher education, which he believed was controlled by leftwing, anti-American ideologues. On Twitter, before his killer was identified, several of Charlie’s admirers speculated that the murderer had been indoctrinated by Marxists and Communist professors at college. Such comments led to snarky responses about the political leanings of the faculty teaching electrical technology (how to be an electrician) at Dixie Technical College in Utah.

Freedom of speech is a basic right, guaranteed in the First Amendment. Even abhorrent views are protected speech; it’s the abhorrent views that need protection, not those that offend no one.

Categories Accountability, Censorship, Democrats, Extremism, Freedom of Speech

Jamelle Bouie: I Mourn Charlie’s Death But Not His Ideology

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2025 //
15

Jamelle Bouie is one of the best, most interesting opinion writers for The New York Times. As a subscriber to that newspaper, I signed up for Bouie’s newsletter, which is where these thoughts of his appeared.

Jamelle Bouie writes:

Virtually every person of note in American politics has, rightfully, condemned the horrific killing of Charlie Kirk and expressed their deep concerns about the growing incidence of political violence in the United States. Wherever we stand politically, we all agree that he should still be alive.

There has been less agreement about Kirk’s life and work. Death tends to soften our tendency to judge. And sudden, violent death — especially one as gruesome and shocking as this one — can push us toward hagiography, especially in the immediate wake of the killing.

So it goes for Kirk.

“Charlie inspired millions,” President Trump said in an Oval Office speech on Wednesday. “He championed his ideas with courage, logic, humor and grace.”

“The best way to honor Charlie’s memory,” Gov. Gavin Newsom of California declared, “is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse.”

Kirk’s approach, wrote the editors of Politico’s Playbook, “was to persuade, to use charm and charisma and provocation and the power of argument to convince people of the righteousness of his cause.”

There is no doubt that Kirk was influential, no doubt that he had millions of devoted fans. But it is difficult to square this idealized portrait of Kirk as model citizen with the man as he was.

Kirk’s eulogists have praised him for his commitment to discourse, dialogue and good-faith discussion. Few if any of them have seen fit to mention the fact that Kirk’s first act on the national stage was to create a McCarthyite watchlist of college and university professors, lecturers and academics. Kirk urged visitors to the website to report those who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”

The list, which still exists, is a catalog of speech acts in and outside the classroom. The surest way to find yourself on the watchlist as an academic is to disagree, publicly, with conservative ideology, or even acknowledge ideas and concepts that are verboten among the far right. And the obvious intent of the list is made clear at the end of each entry, where Kirk and his allies urge readers to contact the schools and institutions in question. Targets of the watchlist attest to harassment and threats of violence.

The Professor Watchlist is a straightforward intimidation campaign, and you can draw a line directly from Kirk’s work attacking academics to the Trump administration’s all-out war on American higher education, an assault on the right to speak freely and dissent.

To speak of Kirk as a champion of reasoned discussion is also to ignore his frequent calls for the state suppression of his political opponents.

“‘Investigate first, define the crimes later’ should be the order of the day,” Kirk declared in an editorial demanding the legal intimidation of anyone associated with the political left. “And for even the most minor of offenses, the rule should be: no charity, no goodwill, no mercy.”

Speaking last year in support of Trump’s plan for mass deportation, Kirk warned that the incoming president would not tolerate dissent or resistance. “Playtime is over. And if a Democrat gets in our way, well, then Matt Gaetz very well might go arrest you,” he said.

It is also important to mention that Kirk was a powerful voice in support of Trump’s effort to “stop the steal” after the 2020 presidential election. His organization, Turning Point USA, went as far as to bus participants to Washington for the rally that devolved into the Jan. 6 riot attack on the Capitol.

And then there is Kirk’s vision for America, which wasn’t one of peace and pluralism but white nationalism and the denigration of Americans deemed unworthy of and unfit for equal citizenship.

On his podcast, Kirk called on authorities to create a “citizen force” on the border to protect “white demographics” from “the invasion of the country.” He embraced the rhetoric of white pride and warned of “a great replacement” of rural white Americans.

“The great replacement strategy, which is well underway every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different,” he said last year. “You believe in God, country, family, faith, and freedom, and they won’t stop until you and your children and your children’s children are eliminated.”

Kirk also targeted Black Americans for contempt. “Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people — that’s a fact,” he said in 2023. Kirk was preoccupied with the idea of “Black crime,” and on the last episode of his show before he was killed, he devoted a segment to “the ever-increasing amount of Black crime,” telling his audience, falsely, that “one in 22 Black men will be a murderer in their lifetime” and that “by age of 23, half of all Black males have been arrested and not enough of them have been arrested.”

Kirk told his listeners that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Supreme Court “is what your country looks like on critical race theory,” that former Vice President Kamala Harris was “the jive speaking spokesperson of equity,” and that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “was awful.”

“I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it,” Kirk said at a 2023 event. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”

This is just a snippet of Kirk’s rhetoric and his advocacy. He also believed that there was no place for transgender people in American society — “We must ban trans-affirming care — the entire country,” he said in 2024 — and has denounced L.G.B.T. identities as a “social contagion.”

It is sometimes considered gauche, in the world of American political commentary, to give words the weight of their meaning. As this thinking goes, there might be real belief, somewhere, in the provocations of our pundits, but much of it is just performance, and it doesn’t seem fair to condemn someone for the skill of putting on a good show.

But Kirk was not just putting on a show. He was a dedicated proponent of a specific political program. He was a champion for an authoritarian politics that backed the repression of opponents and made light of violence against them. And you can see Kirk’s influence everywhere in the Trump administration, from its efforts to strip legal recognition from transgender Americans to its anti-diversity purge of the federal government.

We can mourn Kirk. We can send prayers to his friends and family. We can take stock of the gravity of this event. We can — and should — do all of this and more without pretending he was something, as a public figure, that he was not.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Censorship, Civil Rights, Democracy, Education Reform, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Gender, Racism

Charlie Kirk Was the Voice of MAGA

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2025 //
15

The assassination of Charlie Kirk was vile, disgusting, and abhorrent. The perpetrator has apparently been identified and will be held accountable, as he should be.

Charlie was a bright star in the orbit of Donald Trump, and his many fans and admirers are raising him up on a pedestal because of his tragic death. A Florida member of Congress has proposed erecting a statue to him in the halls of Congress. Trump is awarding him the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Senator Jim Banks spoke to Indiana Republicans after Charlie’s death and urged them to use redistricting to eliminate every Democratic Congressman because “they” killed Charlie. Of course, we now know, as Senator Banks did, that Charlie was not killed by Democrats or a cabal of left wing fanatics, but by a young white Utah man who was raised in a staunchly Republican home. At this writing, we do not know why he killed Charlie. We don’t know his views about politics, whether he objected to Charlie’s views from the left or from the far-far right.

Although his death has been mourned by people of all political views, it’s important to acknowledge what Charlie advocated and what he opposed.

The New York Times published a summary of some of his views. For example:

He opposed gay rights and transgender rights.

He opposed gun control and argued that more people should have guns. A few deaths every year, he said, was a small price to pay to preserve the Second Amendment.

He opposed the civil rights movement and belittled Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an “awful” man. In 2021, he referred to George Floyd as a “scumbag.”

He opposed affirmative action. He called Justice Ketanji Brown Harris “a diversity hire.”

He opposed gender equality.

He published a list of academics called ProfessorWatch. They are/were people who teach about “gender ideology” and racial justice. On social media, professors whose names were on Charlie’s list said they were threatened, doxxed, suspended, harassed, even fired. So while he is supposedly a champion of free speech, he encouraged suppression of free speech by professors on his Watchlist.

Charlie, the Times reported, “rejected the idea that climate change posed an existential threat to humanity, describing it as ‘complete gibberish, nonsense and balderdash’ in December 2024 to members of Turning Point UK, the British offshoot of Turning Point USA.”

In another source, Charlie stated his absolute opposition to abortion. Charlie compared abortion to the Holocaust. When a questioner asked what he would do if his daughter was raped and became pregnant at the age of 10, he said the baby should be born.

A reader of this blog who is called Quickwrit posted the following comment about Charlie’s ideology:

Kirk’s view of women clearly stated in a comment he addressed to Taylor Swift on her announcement of her engagement to Travis Kelce:

“Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.” — The Charlie Kirk Show, August 26, 2025

Kirk comments on Civil Rights and race:

“We made a huge mistake when we passed the civil rights act in the 1960s” — at America Fest, December 2023.

“If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.” — The Charlie Kirk Show, January 23, 2024

“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.” – The Charlie Kirk Show, May 19, 2023

“If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?” – The Charlie Kirk Show, January 3, 2024

“Michelle Obama and [U.S. Representative] Sheila Jackson Lee and [U.S. Supreme Court Justice] Ketanji Brown Jackson…You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to be taken somewhat seriously.” — The Charlie Kirk Show, July 13, 2023

“The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.” — The Charlie Kirk Show, March 20, 2024

“Islam is not compatible with western civilization.” — The Charlie Kirk Show, June 24, 2025

“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.” — Charlie Kirk post on X September 8, 2025

“There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.” — The Charlie Kirk Show, July 6, 2022. (But in fact, in the First Amendment, the Constitution clearly forbids religion in government, and Founding Father James Madison, who our nation honors with the title “Father of the Constitution” made it clear why he and the other Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution very deliberately left out any mention of God, let alone of Jesus, in the Constitution; here is what The Father of our Constitution declared: “The religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man. [Government] MUST NOT PREFER ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER OR PROMOTE ANY RELIGION OVER NONBELIEF.”

Here are video clips of some of these comments.

The New Yorker wrote about the outpouring of grief for Charlie at Texas A&M, where he had spoken to a large audience about his evangelical Christian views.

Kirk’s evangelicalism inflected both the tone and content of his message. He was open to talk with anyone, but steadfast in his confidence that his path was the correct one. “If you do not have a religious basis, specifically a Christian one, for your society, something else is going to replace it,” he said at the Texas A. & M. event. He and his followers were locked in a battle with an enemy that was not just ideologically opposed but unwell, possibly evil. Democratic leaders, Kirk said, were “maggots, vermin, and swine”; transgender identity was a “middle finger to God.”

Charlie had every right to express his views and advocate for them. His murder was an abomination and a stain on our nation. Unlike Charlie, I support gun control. I don’t believe that the Second Amendment gives everyone a right to carry arms at will.

I disagreed with Charlie Kirk on every issue. I would have urged him to eliminate ProfessorWatch, which endangers professors who did not agree with him; it suppressed their free speech rights.

As Americans, our freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. We are entitled to believe what we want. No one should ever be murdered because of their views.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Civil Rights, Extremism, Gender, Racism
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »