Photo credit: hechingerreport.org
Standing against the rising authoritarian tendencies within the education sector is a challenge faced by many educators today. In late 2023, I chose to resign from my position as Kentucky’s commissioner of education to avoid implementing a law passed by the GOP-dominated legislature that sought to diminish the rights and visibility of LGBTQ+ students.
Under the Trump administration, attacks on educational institutions have intensified, evolving from mere hostile language to tangible policies that disproportionately affect vulnerable student populations. This shift has forced education leaders nationwide into difficult positions: they must either stand firm on their principles like equity and factual history or succumb to political pressure to maintain a semblance of peace.
However, it is crucial to recognize that avoiding action is still a form of decision-making. Choosing inaction can have significant repercussions.
Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
One notable demand from the Trump administration has been for state education officials to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives or risk losing federal funding. This directive transcends mere federal overreach; it threatens the foundational values of access, opportunity, and truth that our educational systems are designed to uphold. This is not the only form of intimidation encountered in the educational arena.
Other initiatives aligned with the MAGA movement include attempts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, retract protections for students with disabilities, criminalize support for LGBTQ+ youth, and censor educational content labeled as “anti-American,” which often includes critical discussions surrounding race, gender, and historical injustices.
As we navigate these challenges, educators face uncertain paths ahead. Nonetheless, the choices made today will significantly influence the future landscape of our educational institutions and the broader society.
The simplest choice, albeit a problematic one, is disengagement. This approach involves retreating from the tumultuous nature of national politics and focusing on the fundamental aspects of education, such as instruction and school operations.
Encouraging educators and students to withdraw from political engagement has been an underlying goal of the MAGA education agenda. In uncertain times, the instinct to protect students, families, and staff from external disturbances can lead to disengagement, which may provide a momentary illusion of stability for education communities facing mounting pressure.
Even as protests indicate a burgeoning awareness, the relentless stream of democratic challenges from the administration tends to create emotional fatigue, leading many Americans to retreat into their own lives. A similar pattern has been observed in authoritarian environments, such as Putin’s Russia, where individuals prioritize personal issues over civic responsibility as totalitarianism takes root.
An alternative is to adopt vigilance—a wait-and-see stance where many perceive the administration’s actions as conflicting with federal or state laws or constitutional rights.
Many frustrated citizens, including educational professionals, hope that the judicial system will intervene or that future elections will alter the current trajectory. The belief that some of the administration’s threats may prove unenforceable allows leaders to conserve energy while they gauge enforceability.
However, both disengagement and vigilance tend to be reactive strategies, leaving vulnerable student demographics unprotected and signaling to the community a lack of decisive leadership. By postponing engagement until a convenient moment arises, there is a risk of waiting too long to counter these rising authoritarian tendencies.
Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department and more
A third possibility is capitulation, which involves compliance driven either by fear or pragmatism. Such compliance is evident in recent cases involving Columbia University and various law firms that buckled under pressure to eliminate DEI initiatives to avoid financial repercussions and bureaucratic overreach.
In educational settings, the compelling need for federal funding can make capitulation appealing. This may involve disbanding DEI offices to escape scrutiny or modifying curricula to align with government-approved narratives. However, such actions signify a retreat from ethical and professional duties.
Sometimes, capitulation occurs even without a formal demand, a phenomenon historian Timothy Snyder describes as “anticipatory obedience”, a tendency to surrender rights preemptively to avoid repercussions.
The harm caused by capitulation does not mitigate the risk; in fact, it often invites further damage. Much like acquiescing to any form of coercion, it demonstrates to those in power that their intimidation tactics are effective.
The final and most resolute option is resistance.
Resistance can manifest in various ways, such as refusing to comply with unconstitutional mandates, publicly advocating for inclusivity, or rallying community support to protect marginalized students.
For many public servants, including myself, resistance transcends political maneuvering; it is a fundamental moral responsibility.
Authoritarian regimes rely on the passive complicity of public officials. When education leaders remain silent as the government targets vulnerable students or attempts to erase historical narratives, they become part of the problem.
Resistance carries inherent risks. School districts and campuses risk funding cuts, and leaders who oppose oppressive measures should prepare for potential backlash—whether political, professional, or even physical—from extremist groups aligned with the far-right, media outlets, or supporters of the Trump administration. As authoritarianism becomes more entrenched, the repercussions of dissent become increasingly significant and personal.
Among those who inspire me are higher education leaders like Christopher Eisgruber of Princeton and Alan Garber from Harvard, who have remained steadfast amidst the pressures exerted by the Trump administration and are acutely aware of the potential fallout. Additionally, several state K-12 education leaders are standing firm against pledges to terminate DEI programs in their districts.
As educational leaders navigate their responses to the increasing authoritarianism of the Trump administration, it is critical to consider the implications of not resisting. What unfolds when educators stop protecting their students in favor of enabling oppressive systems?
Authoritarianism flourishes when individuals yield. It falters when they stand resolute. For the survival of our democracy, education leaders must be at the forefront of that resistance.
Our children are observing.
Jason E. Glass is associate vice president for teaching and learning at Western Michigan University. He previously served as state education chief in Kentucky and Iowa, and as a school superintendent in Colorado.
Source
hechingerreport.org