Category Archives: Education / Youth

Speaking Of Education..

There are many ways to “slice and dice” the U.S. citizenry–ways to distinguish between the Americans who support our mad, would-be monarch, and those who don’t. Research strongly suggests that one of those ways is education–not just the wide distinction in voting patterns between Americans with college degrees and those without (in 2024,college graduates went for Harris by 13 points), but between voters with and without such degrees who continue to cheer the persistent, arguably hysterical war that the administration and the Republican Party is waging against science, history, and genuine education of all sorts.

That war is wide-ranging.

MAGA’s White “Christian” nationalist base is once again trying to post the (cinematic version of the) Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Red State legislators–very much including Hoosier lawmakers–continue to confuse education with job training, evaluating the “merit” of high school and college programs on the basis of student’s later earnings. RNK, Jr. has led the battle against medical science and probative evidence, while others in the administration continue to force changes to accurate historical displays in the nation’s parks and museums, turning them into “patriotic” propaganda.

But the administration continues to wage its most ferocious war on the nation’s universities. And as Arne Duncan, the former U.S. education secretary, and David Pressman, a former ambassador to Hungary recently argued in the linked essay, America’s universities need to dramatically improve their response to the unremitting assaults on academic freedom.

For decades, universities have cast themselves as guardians of free inquiry and intellectual independence. Yet when confronted with political coercion aimed squarely at those values, too many have revealed a troubling gap between rhetoric and practice.

In their essay, they draw a troubling parallel between what happened to the universities in Hungary and what they see unfolding in the United States. They point out that the early responses were the same, and predict that if the current spinelessness continues, the outcome will also be the same.

In Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Hungary, a kleptocratic and illiberal political movement began not with tanks in the streets, but with pressure, “compacts” and quiet accommodation. Storied institutions of higher education and research were slowly captured, their leaders coerced through financial threats and political pressure.

There, university rectors told themselves that going along was the best way to protect their institutions and their work. But they were wrong. Accommodation did not moderate the regime; it emboldened it, signaling weakness and inviting further demands.

Duncan and Pressman list the Trump administration assaults: conditioning federal research grants on ideological conformity; threatening investigations; freezing funding; intrusive oversight; turning money meant to cure disease and advance knowledge into political ransom. But, as they charge, with only “a handful of notable exceptions,” academic leadership has responded “with timidity, silence or preemptive concession.”

As the authors charge, “When institutional self-preservation replaces moral leadership, universities abandon their core mission. This is a striking abdication of responsibility — particularly from leaders entrusted with educating the next generation of citizens.”

It’s hard to disagree with their warning that allowing legal caution to displace moral leadership is anticipatory surrender.

Lest we be tempted to shrug off that warning, we might want to take a look at what is happening in Florida right now, where Ron DeSantis is making Florida the poster child for the GOP’s war on reality. The state has just handed down a sociology curriculum that they are requiring all public colleges to use– and the Florida Department of Education is already working on a similar framework for American history classes.

Aligned with the state-sanctioned sociology textbook, the framework requires that the courses do not “include a curriculum that teaches identity politics” or one that “is based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, and economic inequities.”

The Florida Department of Education also distributed an instructor’s manual and textbook, while demanding that institutions submit their current sociology syllabi, “including detailed assignment schedules, topic calendars, or modules to show course coverage.” The state has entirely banned class discussions that “state an intent of institutions today to oppress persons of color,” “that argue most variations between men and women are learned traits and behaviors,” and “that describe when, how, or why individuals determine their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.”

Welcome to Fantasy Island….

Comments

Parental Rights– And Wrongs

One of the thorniest issues in American law involves “parental rights.” On the one hand, the law recognizes the primacy and importance of parenthood, acknowledging the right of parents to inculcate (or at least try to inculcate) their children with their own values and religious beliefs.

On the other hand, the law makes exceptions for behaviors that abuse or endanger children. Courts have long intervened when parents have tried to deny their children life-saving medical care in favor of “praying the illness away,” no matter how sincere such religious beliefs may be. Child welfare departments are supposed to intervene in cases where parents are physically or sexually abusing their children.

In other words, the law attempts to balance respect for the rights and prerogatives of parents with the safety and well-being of children.

Which brings us to a case in Texas. (Of course, it would be Texas…)

There’s a case pending before the Supreme Court of Texas that will test the reach of that state’s newly minted “parental rights amendment.” That state-level constitutional amendment, approved by Texas voters in 2025, declares that parents have the “inherent right to exercise care, custody, and control” over their children and to make decisions about their upbringing.” The measure provides that any governmental action found to “interfere” with those parental rights must be subjected to the highest level of judicial scrutiny.

Presumably, this stringent level of analysis is intended to protect parents whose conduct is ambiguous, or those who engage in parenting rooted in foreign cultural backgrounds. The record in this case is neither. As the linked article reports,

The conduct at issue includes food deprivation, beatings with a belt, forced wall sits that lasted hours, and prolonged kneeling on grains of rice—forms of punishment that most people would recognize as physical and emotional abuse. The question now being seriously entertained is whether the Texas Constitution requires courts to presume such treatment is protected parental decision-making unless the state can meet the nearly insurmountable burden of strict scrutiny.

That this argument is being advanced at all is chilling. That it is being supported by prominent right-wing advocacy organizations, including the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Family Freedom Project, should force a reckoning with what the contemporary “parental rights” movement actually is.

We are all familiar with the rhetoric. Public schools are “undermining” parents. (Usually, by acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people exist, or by teaching accurate history or science rather than creationism.) As the linked essay notes, the phrase “parental rights” has functioned as a euphemism—it isn’t aimed at parents’ right to raise their children in a manner consistent with their values, but intended to protect a parental right to control what “any child is allowed to know, see, or understand about the world.”

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Even as Texas voters were told the amendment would keep the government out of family life, the state was aggressively inserting itself into families whose children needed gender-affirming care, going so far as to label supportive parents as child abusers and to threaten investigations and removals. Parental autonomy, it turned out, was conditional. It applied only when parents’ decisions are aligned with conservative ideology.

Parental rights advocates insist that parents should have a veto over school library books or pronouns, but that same movement is quick to override parents who seek reproductive health care or gender-affirming treatment for their children. Now, the Texas Supreme Court is being asked to rule that extreme corporal punishment and deprivation are protected  parental “rights.” As the essay says, such a finding would be tantamount to ruling “that a child’s right to bodily integrity is subordinate to a parent’s ideological claim of authority, even in the face of clear harm.”

That unthinkable result would confirm the actual intent of the modern parental rights movement. As the author asserts, the movement is not about freedom from government overreach in any principled sense. It is about allowing some parents to “enforce obedience, suppress identity, and inflict harm without meaningful oversight.”

A society that treats children as mere extensions of parental will, rather than as people with rights of their own, abandons one of the most basic functions of law: protecting those who cannot protect themselves. If “parental rights” can be stretched to cover child abuse, then the phrase no longer names a safeguard for families. It names a license—and a warning.

The lower courts had (properly) terminated parental rights in the case. Given those rulings and the copious record of abuse, the willingness to appeal–to argue that abuse is a “parental right”– is a chilling admission.

Comments

Monetizing Everything

Could Indiana’s legislature be any more arrogant, or any more oblivious to what constitutes value? (That was a rhetorical question, since the correct answer is obviously “no.”)

The Indianapolis Star recently reported on yet another example in the General Assembly’s continuing war on education. The report described Senate Bill 199–which recently passed the Senate– as a “Frankenstein of technical education-related changes.” (The bill had originally included restrictions on social media access for minors, but that measure was stripped by the bill’s author on the Senate floor.)

It is possible that many of the legislators who voted for SB 199 were unaware of a single line, “buried in the middle of the bill and absent from the bill digest,” that would eliminate any public college degree if graduates holding that degree are found to earn less than those with only a high school diploma. As the Star noted, that provision is “yet another blow for the state’s higher education institutions less than a year after last-minute language from last legislative session led colleges to cut more than a fifth of the state’s degrees because of low enrollment.”

The bill ties the definition of a “low earning outcome program” to a section of federal law amended by President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That bill already restricts federal student loans from going toward such degrees, but the Indiana bill would go further by putting the degree programs themselves on the chopping block.

It’s unclear what programs could fall into such a category. Programs where the median earnings of its cohort surpassed the median earnings of Hoosiers between 24 and 35 with only a high school diploma — around $33,500 — would be unaffected by the bill.

If a university wants to keep a low earning degree program, it can appeal to the higher education commission. Without commission approval, the university would be mandated to eliminate the program.

According to the report, the bill still needs to pass the House and be signed by the governor to become law. Given the makeup of the House, and the cluelessness of the Governor, not to mention the fact that the bill contains numerous other–arguably reasonable–provisions, I don’t hold out much hope for a last-minute reprieve.

Where do I start with a critique of this ridiculous provision?

For one thing, it is yet another display of what might be called the legislature’s “overlord complex”–the evident belief that, by virtue of winning a (gerrymandered) seat in Indiana’s General Assembly, legislators have been endowed with the right to make all manner of decisions: controlling (i.e. overruling) municipal governments, school corporations, medical personnel…Our overlords deem themselves capable of deciding a wide range of issues that are arguably none of their concern–from whether local governments can ban plastic bags or puppy mills to whether doctors and medical practitioners can determine the medical necessity of abortions or provide gender care.

Our overlords’ zeal to redefine education as job training, and place a fiscal value on everything, is also burdensome and expensive. Some state functionary will be tasked (and paid) to assess the earnings of students who’ve chosen these “low value” degrees. Is that really where citizens want their tax dollars spent?

What happens when inevitable changes in the job market depress the earnings of people with degrees that previously escaped the ax?

And what do we tell the student who wants to major in art or philosophy or a similar subject–a student whose intellectual interests trump her concerns about earning potential? (For that matter, how do we factor in MAGA’s new “tradwife” focus–which, if it took off, would see female graduates taking “home ec” and then staying home with multiple children rather than earning anything at all?)

What really, really makes me livid, however, isn’t the legislature’s obvious inability to recognize the practical problems and jurisdictional breaches such measures represent. It is the constant equation of education with job training, legislators’ evident inability to recognize the value of intellectual inquiry.

A few days ago, I quoted passages from David Brooks’ final column for the New York Times. In that essay, he noted that the road to Trump and MAGA had been paved by the generations of students and their parents who fled from the humanities and the liberal arts, “driven by the belief that the prime purpose of education is to learn how to make money.”

Indiana’s legislature has been drinking that Kool-Aid for years. It’s one reason Indiana is often said to be in competition to be the new Mississippi….

Comments

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