Subterms
Sign up for a full digest of all the best opinions of the week in our Voices Dispatches email Sign up to our free weekly Voices newsletter Rishi Sunak’s government faces a fresh headaches over school buildings at risk of collapse, after another 40 institutions were found to have reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (Raac). Education […] More
The organization that placed a billboard at Harvard University accusing some students of antisemitism amid the fight between Israel and Hamas is part of a network of rightwing media organizations being funded by a major conservative donor via a shadowy new foundation.The single largest identified donor last year to Accuracy in Media (AIM), which placed the billboard, is the Informing America Foundation (IAF), formed in 2021, which has already dished out at least $8m to rightwing nonprofit and for-profit organizations, according to IRS filings.In turn, the IAF’s biggest donor is the Diana Davis Spencer Foundation, a longstanding funder of rightwing causes whose founder and namesake sits on the IAF’s board.Last Wednesday, AIM parked a truck with a billboard affixed to it on Harvard’s campus, and the organization’s president Adam Guillette went on X, formerly Twitter, to brag about the action.The billboard featured photographs of students who are members of student groups that had signed a statement after Hamas’s attacks on Israel with a caption describing them as “Harvard’s biggest antisemites”. The organization also set up a page at a special URL, harvardhatesjews.com, to fundraise off the action.The statement drew criticism for saying it held “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence”. University leadership then came under fire from a former president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, for not denouncing the student statement and for failing to make a stronger condemnation of Hamas.The billboard action was just the latest billboard stunt from AIM under Guillette, who has taken the 55-year old organization in a more confrontational direction.In recent months the organization has also mounted billboard campaigns against pro-Democrat social media influencer, Harry Sisson, and targeted lawmakers in Loudon, Virginia, who subsequently accused the group of harassment.AIM also publishes media criticism of outlets it considers progressive, and its columnists exhibit a preoccupation with outlets such as video news outlet Now This, Vice News and Teen Vogue.According to AIM and IAF tax filings, IAF donated $166,666 in contributions to AIM in 2022, more than 18% of the $908,474 in contributions and grants AIM declared for that year. Tax filings from the Vanguard Charitable Foundation indicate a separate contribution of $300,000 to AIM but the contributor is not identified, leaving IAF as the most significant identified donor. (Donor-advised funds are not required to disclose the identity of donors in tax filings and have thus been criticized as vectors of “dark money” to political nonprofits).But the Guardian can reveal that AIM is just one node in a network of rightwing media and activist organizations IAF is bankrolling, according to its filings.According to the publicly available tax returns, the organization has submitted since its founding in 2021, IAF has handed out more than $8m to rightwing for-profit and nonprofit organizations.In 2022, according to its tax documents, IAF donated $900,000 to Empower Oversight (formerly Empower Whistleblower Center), a nonprofit founded in 2021 to assist whistleblowers and run by three former staffers of Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. That organization’s mission statement says it is a “nonpartisan educational organization dedicated to enhancing independent oversight of government and corporate wrongdoing”.The Guardian emailed Empower Oversight for comment. In response, a spokesperson wrote that the organization was “a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization” that “works with whistleblowers regardless of their political affiliations” and holds accountable “officials from both major political parties”, pointing out that the Biden administration had appointed Empower president Tristan Leavitt to the Merit Systems Protection Board before he joined the organization in 2023.Other organizations on IAF’s donor list have a far more ideological edge, however. They include Star News Digital Media, a for-profit company that operates a network of so-called “pink slime” news sites that present themselves as local media outlets, but mostly recycle slanted stories and rightwing talking points across the network.The network was founded by three former Tea Party activists in 2017, and its outlets across 15 states have been called “Baby Breitbarts”.Real Clear Foundation, a news nonprofit, received $250,000 from the IAF in 2022. Like Empower Oversight, the 501(c)(3) organization presents itself as a nonprofit, but most of the aggregated news and original investigations on the foundation’s site at the time of reporting were directed at Democrats and specifically Joe Biden.A New York Times investigation in 2020 detailed how coverage in sites run by the Real Clear Foundation swung right during the Trump era, fueled by donations from rightwing foundations and dark money.The Guardian emailed a Real Clear Foundation spokesperson for comment but received no response.The IAF’s largest donation was to Bentley Media Group, which operates a rightwing media site called Just The News. According to Washington DC company records, Bentley Media Group’s directors include John Beck, also listed as chief operating officer of Just The News, and John Solomon, a former Washington Times, the Hill and AP reporter who is also listed as Just The News’s editor-in-chief.Beyond funding Bentley Media and Just The News, IAF’s otherwise bare-bones website highlights years-old stories from the website, and lists the two organizations together in the footer of the site.The precise relationship between the for-profit Bentley Media Group and the IAF was not clear on the site or in filings from the organizations.The IAF supported 12 rightwing media and activist organizations in 2022 according to its filings; the average donation was around $425,000.IAF chief executive Debbie Myers has a long history in the entertainment industry, with stints at a CBS affiliate and the Discovery Channel. More recently, according to her LinkedIn and contemporaneous reporting, Myers was president and chief executive of Gingrich 360, a media company founded by the Republican former House speaker Newt Gingrich and his wife Callista.The IAF itself has benefited from remarkable donor largesse in the short time since it was founded, receiving $14.3m in just two years, per its tax filings.Those filings indicate that its largest single donor is the Diana Davis Spencer Foundation (DDSF), whose founder, executive chairman and namesake Diana Davis Spencer also sits on the IAF’s board.The DDSF gave the IAF $1.5m in 2021, according to its tax filing for that year, the most recent one that is publicly available.The DDSF was reportedly instrumental in funding a network of voter suppression groups in the wake of the 2020 election and is a successor organization to foundations founded by Spencer’s parents, who were also sponsors of rightwing organizations.Spencer’s father, Shelby Cullom Davis, was an investment banker who served as the US ambassador to Switzerland under the Ford and Nixon administrations and was later chairman of the board of the rightwing Heritage Foundation from 1985 to 1992. More
A Texas teacher was fired after assigning an illustrated adaptation of Anne Frank’s diary to her middle school class, in a move that some are calling “a political attack on truth”.The eighth-grade school teacher was released after officials with Hamshire-Fannett independent school district said the teacher presented the “inappropriate” book to students, reported KFDM.The graphic novel, written by Ari Folman and illustrated by David Polonsky, adapts the diary of 13-year-old Anne Frank, who wrote while hiding in an annexe in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam.The district sent an email to parents on Tuesday, notifying them that the book, which district officials say was not approved, would no longer be read.“The reading of that content will cease immediately. Your student’s teacher will communicate her apologies to you and your students soon, as she has expressed those apologies to us,” read the email, reported KFDM.By Wednesday, district officials had emailed parents, informing them that the teacher had been fired following an investigation into the incident.“As you may be aware, following concerns regarding curricular selections in your student’s reading class, a substitute teacher has been facilitating the class since Wednesday, September 13, 2023,” said the district to parents, adding that a search for a new instructor was under way.District officials have not released details about the incident, including which school the teacher taught in.Eighth-grade students were reportedly shown a section of the graphic novel where Frank reflected on her own genitals and wanted to see a female friend’s breasts, according to KFDM.Discussions of sexuality were included in the original written version of Anne Frank’s diary, but were edited out in subsequent reprints.A spokesperson for Hamshire-Fannett ISD declined to comment on the incident during a phone call with the Guardian.Notably, this particular graphic novel has been subject to book bans before.A Florida high school removed the graphic novel after a chapter of Moms for Liberty, an extremist advocacy group, objected to the book’s sexual contents and claimed it did not teach the Holocaust accurately, the Associated Press reported.The graphic novel was also removed from Texas’s Dallas-Fort Worth’s Keller independent school district.The latest firing in Texas comes as education laws restricting teaching of race, sexuality and other topics are being implemented in classrooms across the US.The Republican governor, Greg Abbott, signed legislation in 2021 severely limiting how educators can teach topics of race and gender. Texas has also banned more books than any other state, with more than 430 books banned in Texas schools.Clay Robison, a spokesperson with the Texas State Teachers Association, called the latest incident “troubling” to the Guardian.“No teacher should be fired for teaching the Diary of Anne Frank to middle school students,” Robison said. “Teachers are dedicated to teaching the truth, the whole truth,” he said, emphasizing the diary’s importance.Robison added that many Texas teachers are experiencing fear, anger and anxiety about navigating restrictions in the classroom.“It’s a political attack on truth,” Robison said of legislative attempts to limit education. “It’s not a woke agenda. It’s not a liberal agenda. It’s a truth agenda.” More
Ron DeSantis rose to prominence in part on his “anti-woke” agenda, especially when it comes to education. In some settings, culture-war messaging seems to be receding.Earlier this year, the Republican presidential primary looked as though it would be driven by conservative cultural battles, especially fights over education that had animated the party’s base since the pandemic.Gov. Ron DeSantis seemed poised to lead the charge, thanks to an “anti-woke” agenda he put into effect in Florida, restricting how schools teach America’s racial history, banning lessons about gender identity and empowering parents to have books removed from libraries and classrooms.Even Donald J. Trump seemed to be trying to outflank Mr. DeSantis on education policies, promising to root out “Marxists” in the Education Department.But anti-wokeness has not played as large a role as expected in the Republican race so far. On the campaign trail, Mr. DeSantis has refocused his stump speech on the economy and border security while leaning less into culture-war issues. Former Vice President Mike Pence called in a speech this month to redistribute federal education spending to states — a traditional Republican goal dating from long before anti-woke crusades.In the first primary debate last week, the word “woke” was uttered exactly once. Instead, when the topic was education, the conversation onstage in Milwaukee sounded more like a product of the Reagan era than the Trump era.There were calls to eliminate the Education Department.To expand “school choice.”To slay the teachers’ unions.The focus on a throwback set of education topics seems to signal that Republicans are seeking to frame the 2024 campaign around topics beyond their opposition to “wokeness” — generally understood as liberal views on race and gender — as they try to appeal to audiences wider than conservative activists. On education, the candidates were turning to a general election message, though one with familiar echoes.“The old Reagan agenda was front and center, and the post-Trump agenda didn’t get much attention,” said Rick Hess, the director of education policy studies at the center-right American Enterprise Institute. He noted that after school closures during the pandemic, some polling showed a reversal in voters’ longstanding preference for Democrats on education issues. “I think what you see is Republican candidates trying to find a way to leverage that support into something sustainable,” he said.On Monday, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina rolled out a plan that seeks to unite older and more recent Republican talking points on education. Calling his proposal the “Empower Parents Plan,” Mr. Scott said he wanted to “enact nationwide school choice,” while also ripping “the false notions of ‘equity’ and the left’s attacks on honors classes.”A cooling-off of the cultural battle over education in the political conversation could reflect recent electoral history showing that railing against “woke” ideology plays well with social conservatives, but also that most parents are more concerned about children’s pandemic-era learning loss and a lack of mental health support in schools.The sole time the word “woke” was spoken in the two-hour debate last week was when Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, seemed to dismiss school-based cultural issues as a distraction from student learning. “There’s a lot of crazy, woke things happening in schools, but we have got to get these kids reading,” Ms. Haley said, touching on both traditional and current issues for conservatives.For his part, Mr. DeSantis nodded to the bans on critical race theory and what he called “gender ideology” that he enacted in Florida schools (though there is no evidence that critical race theory was taught in the state’s K-12 schools). On the stump before Republican audiences, the governor still reels off an alphabet soup of anti-woke targets like C.R.T., for critical race theory, and E.S.G., for environmental, social and governance corporate investment policies.But Mr. DeSantis has also adjusted the way he presents those issues, making more of an effort to explain why they matter.Aides to the DeSantis campaign say that since the governor has successfully introduced himself to voters as an anti-woke warrior, he is now ramping up his messaging on other policies.Asked in Iowa the day after the debate why he hadn’t emphasized an anti-woke message during the widely viewed televised broadcast, Mr. DeSantis said there were few questions prompting the topic. (Education was the fourth most-discussed issue at the debate, just below abortion, Donald Trump and their credentials, according a Times analysis.)“I mean, for example, they asked a question about U.F.O.s,” Mr. DeSantis said. “They didn’t ask about things like D.E.I. in universities and corporate settings.”It’s not uncommon for candidates to use different rhetoric on the campaign trail or in fund-raising requests to activists than they may use during debates to primary voters. And in many settings, Mr. DeSantis is still invoking “woke” issues to stir up his base.In a fund-raising text last week sent to supporters, Mr. DeSantis wrote, “Across the nation, I am witnessing radical ideology, brimming with hate and guilt, shoved down the throats of children from their earliest days of school.”One possible motive for candidates to de-emphasize education in culture-war terms is the lesson of the 2022 midterms at the local level. In nearly 1,800 school board races nationwide, conservative candidates who opposed discussions of race or gender in classrooms, or opposed mask mandates during the pandemic, lost 70 percent of their races, according to Ballotpedia, a site that tracks U.S. elections. A Republican National Committee memo from last September warned candidates that “focusing on C.R.T. and masks excites the G.O.P. base, but parental rights and quality education drive independents.”“These culture-war arguments are falling flat,” said Karen M. White, deputy executive director of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union. “Banning books and talking about gender identity is not the approach parents and educators and students want.”Traditionally, Republicans have sought to push control of education down to the local level and minimize federal involvement. Under President George W. Bush, the party briefly changed course with the No Child Left Behind Act, which created a rigorous federal program to compel schools to raise student achievement.But sentiment shifted again with Republicans’ rejection of the Obama administration’s promotion of Common Core learning standards a decade ago. Now, some candidates, most visibly Mr. DeSantis, have suggested that the federal government intervene more vigorously with policies like banning critical race theory in schools nationally, and defunding diversity, equity and inclusion offices in higher education, as he has done in Florida’s public colleges and universities.“We’re going to do similar things across the United States,” Mr. DeSantis said in Rock Rapids, Iowa, during a campaign swing on Friday.At the same time, he, too, supports eliminating the Education Department. First proposed by Ronald Reagan in the presidential campaign of 1980, killing the department has been a Republican talking point ever since.In the debate last week, Mr. Pence, Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and Vivek Ramaswamy, the entrepreneur who styles himself as a millennial embodiment of Trumpism, all said that the department must go. Mr. Ramaswamy called it “the head of the snake.”But no Republican administration or G.O.P.-led Congress has seriously tried to shutter the Education Department. Its major programs are widely popular. They include Pell grants for low-income college students, so-called Title I subsidies for schools in low-income communities and funds to ensure that students with disabilities get an equal education.“Given that Republicans don’t even want to trim Medicare and Social Security, it’s incredibly hard to see any credible path forward on defunding the major Department of Education programs,” said Mr. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute.“There’s no way you can get even half the Republican caucus in the House to zero out money for kids with special needs,” he added. “Nobody wants to zero out Title I. And nobody wants to zero out Pell grants.”Ann Klein More
Sign up for a full digest of all the best opinions of the week in our Voices Dispatches email Sign up to our free weekly Voices newsletter Rishi Sunak’s government has been accused of making the country’s stark educational divide even worse, as this year’s A-level results showed a “growing disparity” between the most and […] More
In the aftermath of the supreme court’s decision to strike down race-conscious admissions at universities in June, progressive Democrats have turned their outrage into motivation. They are now using their fury to power an impassioned campaign against a different admissions practice that they consider unjust and outdated: legacy admissions.The century-old practice gives an advantage to the family members of universities’ alumni, a group that tends to be whiter and wealthier than the general pool of college applicants. Critics argue that legacy applicants already enjoy an unfair leg up in the admissions process and that university’s preference toward those students exacerbates existing inequalities in higher education.As the country adapts to a post-affirmative action world, progressives are ramping up the political and legal pressure on universities to scrap their use of legacy admissions. A Democratic bill, introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Congressman Jamaal Bowman of New York, and a civil rights inquiry at the Department of Education could represent a serious threat to legacy admissions.“Though the supreme court gutted race-conscious college admissions, make no mistake, affirmative action is still alive and well for children of alumni and major donors, and taxpayers shouldn’t be funding it,” Merkley told the Guardian.The origins of legacy admissions policies date back to the 1920s, when Jewish and immigrant students began attending America’s elite universities in larger numbers. Concerned over this growing trend, college leaders implemented a range of admissions preferences, such as legacy status, designed to benefit the white Protestant applicants who had populated university classrooms for centuries.Despite the ignominious roots of legacy admissions, the practice persists at many of the country’s most prestigious universities, including every member of the Ivy League. Colleges defend the practice as beneficial for building strong alumni communities across generations and encouraging financial contributions, even though one analysis found “no statistically significant evidence that legacy preferences impact total alumni giving”.Progressives have mocked legacy admissions as “affirmative action for the privileged”, and the supreme court’s decision against race-conscious admissions has reinvigorated their efforts to end the widely unpopular practice altogether. According to one Pew Research Center survey conducted last year found, 75% of Americans believe alumni relations should not be considered in the admissions process.“Many of the legacy kids simply would not have gotten in had they not had legacy [preference],” said Rashad Robinson, president of the racial justice group Color of Change. “This is the result of a system that was designed to operate exactly the way it’s operating.”Last month, Merkley and Bowman reintroduced their bill, the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, to prohibit universities participating in federal student aid programs from giving an admissions advantage to the relatives of alumni or donors. Noting the financial advantages legacy students often enjoy in the college admissions process, Merkley suggested those applicants do not require additional assistance to gain entry to elite universities.“As the first in my family to go to college, I know the struggles facing students whose parents have never been through the process,” Merkley said.According to an analysis conducted by the Harvard research group Opportunity Insights, legacy students were only slightly more qualified than the average applicant to elite private colleges, but were nearly four times more likely to be admitted than those with the same test scores. The boost appears to disproportionately harm students of color, as one study found that white students account for 40% of Harvard’s total applicant pool but nearly 70% of the university’s legacy applicants. Opportunity Insights’ research also concluded that legacy applicants are more likely to come from wealthy families, giving them more access to resources like private education and preparation courses for standardized tests.“Children of donors and alumni may be excellent students, but they are the last people who should get reserved seats, enabling them to gain admission over more qualified students from more challenging backgrounds,” Merkley said.The battle over legacy admissions has now also attracted the attention of the Department of Education. Last month, the department opened a civil rights investigation into Harvard’s use of legacy admissions following a complaint filed by the group Lawyers for Civil Rights on behalf of three racial justice organizations. The complaint accused Harvard of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by giving an admissions edge to the children of donors and wealthy alumni.“We know that schools like [Harvard] set students up for success – and for great success – and introduce them to new innovative ideas and a great network,” said Michael Kippins, a litigation fellow with Lawyers for Civil Rights. “They should reflect the type of diversity that we see in our communities the same way that we would want fair access for anything else.”Olatunde Johnson, a professor at Columbia Law School, viewed lawsuits against colleges’ legacy admissions policies as somewhat inevitable after the supreme court’s decision on affirmative action.“The supreme court opened the door to that challenge by leaving legacy and donor preferences untouched while it got rid of race-conscious affirmative action, so it made it kind of an easy target,” Johnson said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionShe predicted other universities would be closely watching the outcome of the civil rights inquiry into Harvard as they reconsider their own legacy admissions policies.“People might wait to see how this challenge is resolved because some of the broad contours of this complaint are going to mirror what people would do in future cases,” Johnson said. “Whatever kind of ruling there is, it’s going to have implications more broadly for other institutions, even without separate complaints or lawsuits.”Some colleges aren’t waiting on the federal government to make the change. The liberal arts college Wesleyan University announced last month that it would scrap its legacy admissions policy, joining other private institutions like Amherst College and Johns Hopkins University. The practice is already prohibited at a number of public colleges, including all schools in the University of California and the California State University systems.The trend of abandoning legacy admissions policies may accelerate in the face of mounting criticism from political leaders, including some Republicans. After the supreme court’s decision in June, South Carolina senator and Republican presidential candidate Tim Scott praised the ruling and simultaneously suggested universities needed to revisit their legacy preferences.“I think the question is, how do you continue to create a culture where education is the goal for every single part of our community?” Scott told Fox News. “One of the things that Harvard could do to make that even better is to eliminate any legacy programs.”Robinson is somewhat skeptical that a bipartisan coalition will materialize to meaningfully challenge legacy admissions, and the Republicans in control of the House have so far shown little appetite to take up Merkley and Bowman’s bill.But even if legacy preferences do come to an end, Robinson believes much more will need to be done to build a truly just college admissions process. After all, he said, the practice of legacy admissions is only one piece of a much broader system that disadvantages students of color.“Racism is like water pouring over a floor with holes in it. It will always find the cracks. So, yes, we should deal with legacy admissions. But I want to make sure that we don’t think that this is some sort of silver bullet,” Robinson said.“We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that those who are working every day to shut the doors of opportunity and access to those who have been excluded are not going to find other ways to to hold the side door open for people who look like them.” More
A Black journalism professor who was hired by Texas A&M University before objections in some quarters over her history of promoting diversity foiled the job offer has secured a $1m settlement from the institution.Kathleen McElroy also received an apology from officials at Texas A&M, the largest public school in the US, who in a statement Thursday acknowledged “mistakes … made during the process”.In her own statement, McElroy said she would remain in a tenured teaching position at the University of Texas at Austin, and hoped the settlement would “reinforce A&M’s allegiance to excellence in higher education and its commitment to academic freedom and journalism”.“I will never forget that … students, members, former students and staff voiced support for me from many sectors,” McElroy’s statement also said.The payment and apology to McElroy all but closed an episode that unfolded as Republican lawmakers across the US eye the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion programs at college campuses. Such programs are in conservatives’ crosshairs after the Republican supermajority on the US supreme court’s bench ruled in June that race-conscious college admissions decisions were unconstitutional.That court ruling effectively ended affirmative action in the US’s higher education system.Texas A&M announced in June that it had hired McElroy – a school alum and former New York Times editor – to refurbish its journalism department in June. Hiring McElroy away from a more liberal rival at the University of Texas won the school plaudits from some sectors.But then, in a July interview with the Texas Tribune, McElroy revealed that she had encountered pushback at Texas A&M because she had previously worked to diversify newsrooms and make them more inclusive.Documents released Thursday to media organizations including the Associated Press and the local news outlet KVUE showed that six of the school governing board’s members had expressed “concerns” about McElroy after the right-leaning website Texas Scorecard reported on her prior diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.Alums and active students had also called and emailed the university president’s office to challenge the hiring of “a DEI proponent … to serve as director of the new journalism program,” said the documents, which summarized Texas A&M’s investigation into the McElroy matter, according to the AP.Subsequently, as the professor told it, the school president Katherine Banks reduced McElroy’s job offer to a five-year position as opposed to one that was on track to be tenured, which implies certain longer-term employment protections. McElroy told the Tribune that the five-year position – from which she could be fired at any time – was then reduced to a one-year post.At that point, McElroy rejected the job and indicated that she would stay in her teaching role at the University of Texas at Austin.Banks maintained she was not involved in modifications to the contract offered to McElroy. Nonetheless, she resigned from the presidency on 21 July, and the Texas A&M board later negotiated a settlement with McElroy.McElroy was one of two reasons why Texas A&M drew national headlines in July. In a separate case, A&M professor Joy Alonzo was suspended within hours of speaking critically about Texas’s lieutenant governor Dan Patrick during a lecture on the ongoing opioid crisis.Alonzo’s suspension, along with McElroy’s botched hiring, have prompted concerns among many in higher education that colleges are increasingly clamping down on free speech at campuses in the face of political pressure.The Associated Press contributed reporting More
The activist group Moms for Liberty has become the new face of the culture wars around education. The group was founded in 2021, during the Covid pandemic, and rose to prominence through outspoken opposition to school mask mandates. The group has now spread across the United States, its membership fueled by the Republican-led moral panic over a “woke ideology” that is supposedly sweeping public schools and “indoctrinating” children. At present, the group counts 285 chapters in 45 states.As the group has grown, so too have its political ambitions. Moms for Liberty places particular emphasis on capturing local school boards in order to secure greater control over school policy. More broadly, the group endorses legislation that would limit the topics that can be discussed in the classroom (for instance, Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” legislation), and they promote policies that allow parents to target books for removal from school libraries and classrooms.The materials challenged by Moms for Liberty reflect the “war on wokeness” announced by conservative figures such as Tucker Carlson and Ron DeSantis. Group members regularly disrupt school board meetings to rail against books that address the nation’s history of racial violence (maligned under the fuzzy category of “critical race theory”). Likewise, the group condemns materials that explore gender identity or advocate for LGBTQ+ acceptance – particularly those that explore transgender identity. Librarians, teachers and parents who defend these materials have been repeatedly harassed by group members as “groomers” or “pedophile sympathizers”.The caustic tone of the group’s activism has led the Southern Poverty Law Center to classify it as an extremist organization. As a movement, Moms for Liberty draws from the long history of rightwing women’s activism in the US – particularly in such activists’ identity as mothers. Where mothers’ movements are often associated with projects of social welfare, a counter-tradition of women’s activism has politicized motherhood to pursue staunchly conservative aims.As the historian Michelle Nickerson demonstrates, the period surrounding the cold war is a useful lens for understanding how mothers’ movements became a pillar of American conservatism. Like Moms for Liberty, these groups responded to cultural change by condemning the spread of progressive ideologies through public school systems. Fueled by anti-communist panic, they fought for the removal of textbooks, teachers and administrators they judged to be tainted by progressive ideals. A defining feature of these groups was how they leveraged cultural beliefs surrounding motherhood for political ends. They invoked motherhood to argue that they were uniquely connected to the domestic sphere and childrearing and therefore uniquely able to speak for the moral interests of parents, families and children.Moms for Liberty pulls deeply from this established playbook of “housewife populism”. Behind their challenges to school policies rests a repeated assertion: as mothers, they possess a right to speak for the welfare of children, as opposed to government bureaucrats, educational elites or teachers’ unions (who they deride as the “K-12 mafia”). This insistence rests at the heart of the slogan that defines the group: “We don’t co-parent with the government”. In the Moms for Liberty worldview, parents hold an “innate” or “natural” right to decide what their children should be learning, the health protocols they should observe, or the ideas they are exposed to. And parents must wield this right in an uncompromising, militant sense to protect their children against elite campaigns of “woke indoctrination”.The specific aims pushed by Moms for Liberty reflect a more troubling thread from the history of rightwing mothers’ activism. Scholars such as Elizabeth Gillespie McRae have detailed how white mothers’ organizations were some of the most committed players in the mid-century project of “massive resistance” fought to preserve the Jim Crow order. This segregationist battle was particularly concerned with legal mandates for school desegregation. And one of its battlegrounds remains central to the mission of Moms for Liberty: textbooks and school curricula. In the south and beyond, mothers’ organizations fought to eliminate books and teachings that highlighted white violence or white supremacy. Furthermore, they routinely attempted to remove books from the curriculum that highlighted Black contributions to the nation, its history, or its culture.The challenges posed by Moms for Liberty, then, exceed its disruptive brand of activism, its ties to far-right organizations, or the campaigns of harassment its members have allegedly waged against school boards or rival parent groups. More broadly, the group’s mission resonates with an established history of rightwing mothers’ movements that focused on schools in order to block movements for social equality and to preserve structures of white supremacy.Moms for Liberty channels this troubled racial legacy while broadening its exclusionary mission to sexuality and gender identity. Group chapters persistently invoke motherhood and parental rights as cudgels to shape public schools toward their particular vision of history, race, sexuality and faith. Narratives that complicate conservative visions of gender identity are demonized as efforts to corrupt children and are targeted for removal. In this way, Moms for Liberty weaponizes family rights to undercut equal access to schools for other families with other values. This project becomes more ominous yet through the group’s cozy relationship with Republican officials who have pushed for policies to limit support and visibility for already vulnerable LGBTQ+ students.The culture wars have long fastened upon schools as institutions that shape the future of the nation. The threats posed by Moms for Liberty exceed business as usual in the culture wars. Instead, group chapters routinely exploit the moral authority of the family to erase other ways of experiencing race, gender, or sexuality – while reshaping schools and curricula around their own fears, interests, and beliefs.In doing so, Moms for Liberty continues one of the most troubling aims pursued by historical rightwing mothers’ groups: to hijack public institutions to stall the tides of cultural change.
Michael Feola is a professor of government at Lafayette College, a contributor to publications including Slate and The Washington Post, and the author of a forthcoming book on the far right, Rage of Replacement More
