Ryan Walter, the firebrand MAGA Superintendent of Schools in Oklahoma, has hired PragerU, a rightwing organization, to develop a test specifically for teachers from California and New York. The test, now under development, is intended to identify teachers with views about gender and patriotism that are unacceptable in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma has a shortage of teachers and lower pay than either of the targeted states. I seriously doubt that teachers from California and New York are flooding in to Oklahoma.
Oklahoma will require applicants for teacher jobs coming from California and New York to pass an exam that the Republican-dominated state’s top education official says is designed to safeguard against “radical leftist ideology,” but which opponents decry as a “MAGA loyalty test.”
Ryan Walters, Oklahoma’s public schools superintendent, said Monday that any teacher coming from the two blue states will be required to pass an assessment exam administered by PragerU, an Oklahoma-based conservative nonprofit, before getting a state certification.
“As long as I am superintendent, Oklahoma classrooms will be safeguarded from the radical leftist ideology fostered in places like California and New York,” Walters said in a statement.
PragerU, short for Prager University, puts out short videos with a conservative perspective on politics and economics. It promotes itself as “focused on changing minds through the creative use of digital media.”
Quinton Hitchcock, a spokesperson for the state’s education department, said the Prager test for teacher applicants has been finalized and will be rolling out “very soon.”
The state did not release the entire 50-question test to The Associated Press but did provide the first five questions, which include asking what the first three words of the U.S. Constitution are and why freedom of religion is “important to America’s identity.”
Prager didn’t immediately respond to a phone message or email seeking comment. But Marissa Streit, CEO of PragerU, told CNN that several questions on the assessment relate to “undoing the damage of gender ideology.”
Jonathan Zimmerman, who teaches history of education at the University of Pennsylvania, said Oklahoma’s contract with PragerU to test out-of-state would-be teachers “is a watershed moment.”
“Instead of Prager simply being a resource that you can draw in an optional way, Prager has become institutionalized as part of the state system,” he said. “There’s no other way to describe it.”
Zimmerman said the American Historical Association did a survey last year of 7th- to 12th-grade teachers and found that only a minority were relying on textbooks for day-to-day instruction. He said the upside to that is that most history books are “deadly boring.” But he said that means history teachers are relying on online resources, such as those from Prager.
“I think what we’re now seeing in Oklahoma is something different, which is actually empowering Prager as a kind of gatekeeper for future teachers,” Zimmerman said.
One of the nation’s largest teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers, has often been at odds with President Donald Trump ‘s administration and the crackdown on teacher autonomy in the classroom.
“This MAGA loyalty test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten.
She was critical of Walters, who pushed for the state’s curriculum standards to be revised to include conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election.
“His priority should be educating students, but instead, it’s getting Donald Trump and other MAGA politicians to notice him,” Weingarten said in a statement.
Tina Ellsworth, president of the nonprofit National Council for the Social Studies, also raised concerns that the test would prevent teachers from applying for jobs.
“State boards of education should stay true to the values and principles of the U.S. Constitution,” Ellsworth said. “Imposing an ideology test to become a teacher in our great democracy is antithetical to those principles.”
The National Science Foundation was a target for Elon Musk’s DOGE boys. Trump seemed to dislike science, so he went along with deep cuts. We can hope that historians will one day explain Trump’s disdain for science. At the moment, it’s inexplicable.
Only days ago, Trump released an executive order that places political appointees in charge of grantmaking, with the power to ignore peer reviews.
Science magazine reported:
Research advocates are expressing alarm over a White House directive on federal grantmakingreleased yesterday that they say threatens to enhance President Donald Trump’s control over science agency decisions on what to fund. It would, among other changes, require political appointees to sign off on new grant solicitations, allow them to overrule advice from peer reviewers on award decisions, and let them more easily terminate ongoing grants.
Although many changes described in the order are already underway at research agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation (NSF), its existence could strengthen the hand of Trump appointees, says Carrie Wolinetz, a former senior administrator at NIH.
“We’ve already seen this administration take steps to exert its authority that have resulted in delays, freezes, and termination of billions of dollars in grants,” says Wolinetz, now a lobbyist for Lewis-Burke Associates. “This would codify those actions in a way that represents the true politicization of science, which would be a really bad idea.”
149 NSF employees, all members of the American Federation of Government Employees chapter that represents the agency’s workforce, sent a letter to Congress warning staffing cuts and other disruptions to NSF operations were threatening the agency’s mission and independence. Jesus Soriano, president of the chapter, said NSF has lost one-third of its staff—or nearly 600 employees—since January. The agency also began canceling hundreds of its research grants in April and has now scrapped 1,600 active grants, employees said.
Last month, the Trump administration announced it is going to evict NSF from its headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, to make room for the Housing and Urban Development Department, and has yet to unveil a plan detailing where the agency will relocate. President Trump proposed slashing NSF’s budget by 56% in fiscal 2026.
“What’s happening at NSF is unlike anything we’ve faced before,” Soriano said at a press conference held last week by Democrats on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “Our members—scientists, program officers, and staff—have been targeted for doing their jobs with integrity. They’ve faced retaliation, mass terminations, and the illegal withholding of billions in research funding.”
In recent decades, many universities have sought to increase racial and ethnic diversity in their student body and faculty. In addition to grades and test scores, they looked at many other factors, such as talents, life experiences, meeting challenges. This process meant that more students of color were admitted, while some students with higher test scores were rejected.
The Trump administration adamantly opposes this process, known as affirmative action. Its view is that scores on the SAT and ACT and grades should be the most important, if not the only criteria for admission. Those scores, to Trump officials, are synonymous with merit. Any deviation from their view will be grounds for investigating violations of civil rights laws.
As part of the settlements struck with two Ivy League universities in recent weeks, the Trump administration will gain access to the standardized test scores and grade point averages of all applicants, including information about their race, a measure that could profoundly alter competitive college admissions.
That aspect of the agreements with Columbia andBrown, which goes well beyond the information typically provided to the government, was largely overlooked amid splashier news that the universities had promised to pay tens of millions of dollars to settle claims of violations of federal anti-discrimination laws, including accusations that they had tolerated antisemitism.
The release of such data has been on the wish list of conservatives who are searching for evidence that universities are dodging a 2023 Supreme Court decision barring the consideration of race in college admissions, and will probably be sought in the future from many more of them.
But college officials and experts who support using factors beyond test scores worry that the government — or private groups or individuals — will use the data to file new discrimination charges against universities and threaten their federal funding.
The Trump administration is using every lever it can to push elite college admissions offices toward what it regards as “merit-based” processes that more heavily weigh grades and test scores, arguing that softer measures, such as asking applicants about their life challenges or considering where they live, may be illegal proxies for considering race.
The additional scrutiny is likely to resonate in admissions offices nationwide. It could cause some universities to reconsider techniques like recruitment efforts focused on high schools whose students are predominantly people of color, or accepting students who have outstanding qualifications in some areas but subpar test scores, even if they believe such actions are legal.
“The Trump administration’s ambition here is to send a chill through admissions offices all over the country,” said Justin Driver, a Yale Law School professor who just wrote a book about the Supreme Court and affirmative action and who said he believed that the administration’s understanding of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decisionwas wrong. “They are trying to get universities to depress Black and brown enrollment.”
July 28, 2025, by Dr. Chet Haskell: The headlines are full of uncertainty for American higher education. “Crisis” is a common descriptor. Federal investigations of major institutions are underway. Severe cuts to university research funding have been announced. The elimination of the Department of Education is moving ahead. Revisions to accreditation processes are being floated. Reductions in student support for educational grants and loans are now law. International students are being restricted.
These uncertainties and pressures affect all higher education, not just targeted elite institutions. In particular, they are likely to exacerbate the fragility of smaller, independent non-profit institutions already under enormous stress. Such institutions, some well-known, others known only locally, will be hard hit particularly hard by the combination of Trump Administration pressures and the developing national demographic decline for traditional-age students.(https://www.highereddive.com/news/decline-high-school-graduates-demographic-cliff-wiche-charts/738281/) These small colleges have been a key element of the American higher education scene, as well as for numerous local communities, for many decades.
It is widely understood that the vibrancy of American higher education comes, in part, from the diversity of its institutions and educational goals. The rich mixture of American colleges and universities is a strength that many other nations lack. Students have opportunities to start and stop their educations, to change directions and academic goals, to move among different types of institutions.
Smaller undergraduate colleges play important roles in this non-systemic system. They provide focused educational opportunities for younger adults, where they can build their lives on broad principles. Impressively large percentages of small college graduates go on to graduate education for various professions. Small colleges provide large numbers of graduates who enter PhD programs and eventually enter the professorate.
There are approximately 1179 accredited private institutions with enrollments of fewer than 3000 students. Of these, 185 have between 3000 and 2000 students. Another 329 have enrollments below 2000 but above 1000. A final 650 institutions have enrollments below 1000. These 1179 institutions students include few wealthy colleges such as Williams, Amherst, Carleton or Pomona, as well as numerous struggling, relatively unknowns.
A basic problem is one of scale. In the absence of significant endowments or other external support, it is very difficult to manage small institutions in a cost effective manner. Institutions with enrollments below 1000 are particularly challenged in this regard. The fundamental economics of small institutions are always challenging, as most are almost completely dependent on student enrollments, a situation getting worse with the coming decline of traditional college age students. There are limited options available to offset this decline. Renewed attention to student retention is one. Another is adding limited graduate programs. However, both take investment, appropriate faculty and staff capacity and time, all of which are often scarce.
These institutions have small endowments measured either in total or per student value. Of the 1179. There are only 80 with total endowments in excess of $200 million. While a handful have per student endowments that rival the largest private universities, (Williams, Amherst and Pomona all have per student endowments in excess of $1.8 million), the vast majority have per student endowments in the $40,000 range and many far less.
Most of these schools have high tuition discount rates, often over 50%, so their net tuition revenue is a fraction of posted expense. They are all limited by size – economies of scale are difficult to achieve. And most operate in highly competitive markets, where the competition is not only other small schools, but also a range of public institutions.
So, what is the underendowed, under resourced small college to do?
The most common initiatives designed to address these sorts of challenges are consortia, collaborative arrangements among institutions designed to increase student options and to share expenses. There are numerous such arrangements, examples being the Colleges of the Fenway in Boston, the Five Colleges of Western Massachusetts, the Washington DC Metropolitan Area Consortium, and the Claremont Colleges in California, among others.
The particulars of each of these groups differ, but there are commonalities. Most are geographically oriented, seeking to take advantage from being near each other. Typically, these groups want to provide more opportunities for students through allowing cross-registrations, sharing certain academic programs or joint student activities. They usually have arrangements for cost-sharing or cost reductions through shared services for costs like security services, IT, HR, risk management options, pooled purchasing and the like. In other cases (like the Claremont Consortium) they may share libraries or student athletic facilities. Done well, these arrangements can indeed reduce costs while also attracting potential students through wider access to academic options.
However, it is unlikely that such initiatives, no matter how successful, can fundamentally change the basic financial situation of an independent small college. Such shared services savings are necessary and useful, but usually not sufficient to offset the basic enrollment challenge. The financial impact of most consortia is at the margins.
Furthermore, participating institutions have to be on a solid enough financial basis to take part in the first place. Indeed, a consortium like Claremont is based on financial strength. Two of the members have endowments in excess of $1.2 billion (Pomona’s is $2.8 billion.) The endowments of the others range from a low of $67 million (Keck Graduate with 617 students) to Scripps with $460 million for 1100 students.) The Consortium is of clear value to its members, but none of these institutions is on the brink of failure. Rather, all have strong reputations, a fact that provides another important enrollment advantage.
One important factor in these consortia arrangements is that the participating institutions do not have to give up their independence or modify their missions. Their finances, alumni and accreditation are separate. And while the nature of the arrangement indicates certain levels of compromise and collaboration, their governance remains basically unchanged with independent fiduciary boards.
At the other end of the spectrum are two radically different situations. One is merging with or being acquired by another institution. Prep Scholar counts 33 such events since 2015. (https://blog.prepscholar.com/permanently-closed-colleges-list). Lacking the resources for financial sustainability, many colleges have had no choice but to take such steps.
Merging or being acquired by a financially stronger institution has many advantages. Faculty and staff jobs may be protected. Students can continue with their studies. The institution being acquired may be able to provide continuity in some fashion within the care of the new owner. Endowed funds may continue. The institution’s name may continue as part of an “institute” or “center” within the new owner’s structure. Alumni records can be maintained. Real estate can be transferred. Debts may be paid off and so forth. There are multiple examples of the acquiring institution doing everything possible along these lines.
But some things end. Independent governance and accreditation cease as those functions are subsumed by the acquiring institution. Administrative and admissions staffs are integrated and some programs, people and activities are shed. Operational leadership changes. And over time, what was once a beloved independent institution may well fade away.
The end of a college is a very sad thing for all involved and, indeed, for society in general. Often a college is an anchor institution in a small community and the loss is felt widely. The closure of a college is akin to the closure of a local factory. As Dean Hoke and others have noted, this is a particular problem for rural communities.
Are there other possible avenues, something between a consortium and a merger or outright closure?
One relatively new model has been organized by two quite different independent institutions, Otterbein University and Antioch University, that came together in 2022 to create the Coalition for the Common Good. Designed to be more than a simple bilateral partnership, the vision of the Coalition is eventually to include several institutions in different locations linked by a common mission and the capacity to grow collective enrollments.
At its core, the Coalition is based on academic symbiosis. Otterbein is a good example of the high-quality traditional undergraduate residential liberal arts institution. It has been well-run and has modest financial resources. Facing the demographic challenges noted earlier (in a state like Ohio that boasts dozens of such institutions), it developed a set of well-regarded graduate programs, notably in nursing and health-related fields, along with locally based teacher education programs and an MBA. However, despite modest success, they faced the limitations of adult programs largely offered in an on-campus model. Regardless of quality, they lacked the capacity to expand such programs beyond Central Ohio.
Antioch University, originally based in Ohio, had evolved over the past 40 years into a more national institution with locations in California, Washington State and New Hampshire offering a set of graduate professional programs to older adults mostly through distance modalities in hybrid or low-residency forms. Antioch, however, was hampered by limited resources including a very small endowment. It had demonstrated the capacity to offer new programs in different areas and fields but lacked the funds necessary for investment to do so.
Within the Coalition, the fundamental arrangement is for Antioch to take over Otterbein’s graduate programs and, with Otterbein financial support, to expand them in other parts of the country. The goal is significant aggregate enrollment growth and sharing of new revenues. While they plan a shared services operation to improve efficiencies and organizational effectiveness, their primary objective is growth. Antioch seeks to build on Otterbein’s successes, particularly with nursing programs. It already has considerable experience in managing academic programs at a distance, a fact that will be central as it develops the Otterbein nursing and health care programs in a new Antioch Graduate School of Nursing and Health Professions.
It is assumed that additional new members of the Coalition will resemble Otterbein in form, thus further increasing opportunities for growth through enhanced reach and greater scale. New members in other geographic locations will provide additional opportunities for expansion. One early success of the Coalition has been the capacity to offer existing Antioch programs in Central Ohio, including joint partnerships with local organizations, health care and educational systems. Crucially, both institutions remain separately accredited with separate governance and leadership under a Coalition joint “umbrella” structure.
This is not to assert that this model would work for many other institutions. First, many schools with limited graduate programs will be reluctant to “give up” some or all these programs to another partner in the same fashion as Otterbein has with Antioch. Others may not fit geographically, being too remote for expansion of existing programs. Still others may not wish to join a group with an avowed social justice mission. Finally, as with some consortia, the Coalition arrangement assumes a certain degree of institutional financial stability – it cannot work for institutions on the brink of financial disaster, lest the weakest institution drag down the others.
Are there other organizational variants that are more integrated than consortia, but allow the retention of their independence in ways impossible in a merger or acquisition model? What can be learned from the Coalition initiative that might help others? How might such middle-ground collaboration models be encouraged and supported?
How can philanthropy help?
This is an opportunity for the segments of the philanthropic world to consider possible new initiatives to support the small college elements of the education sector. While there will always be efforts to gain foundation support for individual colleges, there will never be enough money to buttress even a small portion of deserving institutions that face the financial troubles discussed above
Philanthropy should take a sectoral perspective. One key goal should be to find ways to support smaller institutions in general. Instead of focusing on gifts to particular institutions, those interested in supporting higher education should look at the multiple opportunities for forms of collaborative or collective action. Central to this effort should be exploration of ways of supporting diverse collaborative initiatives. One example would be to provide sufficient backing to a struggling HBCU or women’s college to enable it to be sufficiently stable to participate in a multi-institutional partnership.
As noted, institutional consortia are well established as one avenue for such collaboration. Consortia have existed for many years. There are consortia-based associations that encourage and support consortia efforts. However, every consortium is unique in its own ways, as participating institutions have crafted a specific initiative of a general model to meet their particular situations and need. Consortia can be important structures for many institutions and should be encouraged.
But there is a large middle ground between consortia arrangements and mergers and acquisitions. The Coalition for the Common Good is but one such arrangement and it is still in its early stages. What has been learned from the experience thus far that might be of use to other institutions and groups? How might this middle ground be explored further for the benefit of other institutions?
One thing learned from the Coalition is the complexity of developing a new model for collective action. Antioch and Otterbein separately pursued individual explorations of options for two or more years before determining that their partnership together should move forward. It then took a full year to get to the point of announcing their plans and another year to complete negotiations and sign completed legal documents and to obtain the necessary accreditor, regulator and Department of Education approvals. The actual implementation of their plans is still in a relatively early stage. In short, it takes time.
It also takes tremendous effort by leadership on both sides, as they must work closely together while continuing to address the daily challenges of their separate institutions. Everyone ends up with at least two major jobs. Communication is vital. Boards must continue to be supportive. The engagement of faculty and staff takes time and can be costly.
What is often referred to as “fit” – the melding of cultures and attitudes at both the institutional and individual levels – is essential. People must be able to work together for shared goals. The burdens of accreditation, while necessary, are time-consuming and multifaceted. There are many things that can go wrong. Indeed, there are examples of planned and announced mergers or collaborations that fall apart before completion.
Philanthropic institutions could support this work in numerous ways, first for specific initiatives and then for the sector, by providing funding and expertise to facilitate new forms of coalitions. These could include:
Providing financial support for the collaborative entity. While participating institutions eventually share the costs of creating the new arrangement, modest dedicated support funding could be immensely useful for mitigating the impact of legal expenses, due diligence requirements, initial management of shared efforts and expanded websites.
Providing support for expert advice. The leaders of two institutions seeking partnership need objective counsel on matters financial, legal, organizational, accreditation and more. Provision of expertise for distance education models is often a high priority, since many small colleges have limited experience with these.
Funding research. There are multiple opportunities for research and its dissemination. What works? What does not? How can lessons learned by disseminated?
Supporting communication through publications, workshops, conferences and other venues.
Developing training workshops for boards, leadership, staff and faculty in institutions considering collaborations.
Crafting a series of institutional incentives through seed grant awards to provide support for institutions just beginning to consider these options.
These types of initiatives might be separate, or they might be clustered into a national center to support and promote collaboration.
These and other ideas could be most helpful to many institutions exploring collaboration. Above all, it is important to undertake such explorations before it is too late, before the financial situation becomes so dire that there are few, if any, choices.
Conclusions
This middle ground is not a panacea. The harsh reality is that not all institutions can be saved. It takes a certain degree of stability and a sufficient financial base to even consider consortia or middle ground arrangements like the Coalition for the Common Good. Merging with or being acquired by stronger institutions is not a worst-case scenario – there are often plenty of reasons, not just financial, that this form of change makes great sense for a smaller, weaker institution.
It is also important for almost all institutions, even those with significant endowment resources, to be thinking about possible options. The stronger the institution, the stronger the resistance to such perspectives is likely to be. There are examples of wealthy undergraduate institutions with $1 billion endowments that are losing significant sums annually in their operating budgets. Such endowments often act like a giant pillow, absorbing the institutional challenges and preventing boards and leaders from facing difficult decisions until it may be too late. Every board should be considering possible future options.
In the face of likely government rollbacks of support, the ongoing demographic challenges for smaller institutions and the general uncertainties in some circle about the importance of higher education itself, independent private higher education must be more creative and assertive about its future. Also, it is essential to remember that the existential financial challenges facing these institutions predate the current Presidential Administration and certainly will remain once it has passed into history.
Just trying to compete more effectively for enrollments will not be sufficient. Neither will simply reducing expense budgets. New collaborative models are needed. Consortia have roles to play. The example of the Coalition for the Common Good may show new directions forward. Anyone who supports the diversity of American higher education institutions should work to find new ways of assuring financial stability while adhering to academic principles and core missions.
Chet Haskell is an independent higher education consultant. Most recently, he was Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and University Provost at Antioch University and Vice President for Graduate Programs of the Coalition for the Common Good.
The founder of Accell Schools is Ron Packard, who has played a prominent role in the for-profit, virtual charter school industry for years.
You may recall Ron Packard. I have written about him in the past. His background is in finance and management consulting. He worked for Goldman Sachs and McKinsey. He was never a teacher or principal, which I suppose makes him an ideal education entrepreneur, unbound by tradition, open to innovation, and alert to profit making opportunities.
When he was CEO of K12, Inc., the leader in virtual charter schools, he was paid $5 million a year. K12 dealt with numerous lawsuits and controversies in relation to low test scores, low teacher pay, low graduation rates, and other issues. In 2020, K12 Inc. became Stride, which continues to be a leader in the virtual charter industry.
In 2014, Packard founded Accell as a charter chain. His company bio describes his experience:
Ron previously founded and was CEO of K12 Inc., where he grew the company from an idea to nearly $1B in revenue, making it one of the largest education companies in the world. Under his leadership, revenue compounded at nearly 80%. Prior to K12, he was CEO of Knowledge Schools and Knowledge Learning Corporation, and Vice President at Knowledge Universe, one of the largest early childhood education providers in the U.S.
He has also played a pivotal role in investments across the education sector, including LearnNow, Children’s School USA, LeapFrog, TEC, and Children’s Discovery Center. Earlier in his career, Ron worked in mergers and acquisitions at Goldman Sachs and served clients at McKinsey & Company.
Bill Bennett was U.S. Secretary of Education under President Reagan. He championed vouchers and morality during his tenure.
Until he became chair of the board of K12, he was known as a skeptic of computers in the classroom.
He wrote in his book “The Educated Child,”
“There is no good evidence that most uses of computers significantly improve learning.”
— from his 1999 book The Educated Child
Bennett said in a February 2001 Bloomberg interview:
“From what I’ve observed in schools, we’d be better off unplugging the computers and throwing them out.”
He abandoned his skepticism when he joined the K12 company.
His new role as a “founding provost” of online “classical academies,” calls upon his background as a moralist. His wildly popular “The Book of Virtues” made millions of dollars and established Bennett as the nation’s most moral man.
But this was a standing he lost years ago when it was revealed that he had a serious gambling habit.
It is just too delicious — the image of the man who wrote not only “The Book of Virtues” but “The Children’s Book of Virtues” pulling into Las Vegas in his comped limo, bags whisked to his comped high-roller’s suite while he heads into the blaring, bleating belly of the beast to spend hours pumping thousands of dollars into the slots.p. Turns out William J. Bennett, who considers passing judgment on the personal lives of our leaders a moral duty and who all but called for President Clinton’s head on a platter in “The Death of Outrage,” is a high-stakes gambler. The pulpit bully who took down the moral predilections of single parents, working mothers, divorced couples and gays in “The Broken Hearth,” the man who, despite rather formidable personal girth, preaches against those “ruled by appetite,” has, according to Newsweek and the Washington Monthly, dropped as much as 8 million bucks in high-stakes gambling over the last 10 years.
How much fun is that ?
Bennett’s fall from grace was camera perfect, and no doubt he’ll get big points from the judges for the spin of his attempted recovery. Gambling is legal, he quickly pointed out, at least where he did it. And he never put his family in danger. And it wasn’t $8 million, it was “large sums of money.” Furthermore, he always paid taxes on his winnings and, Atlantic City and Las Vegas being the charitable institutions they are, he pretty much “always broke even.”
If that weren’t intoxicating enough for his many detractors, within minutes of serving up this layer cake of denial, Bennett made a public vow that his gambling days are over because “this is not the example I want to set.”
Or as Kenny’ll tell you, you gotta know when to walk away, and know when to run .
Bennett got into hot water in 2005 when he made a comment on his radio show that was widely denounced by both parties:
Speaking on his daily radio show, William Bennett, education secretary under Ronald Reagan and drugs czar under the first George Bush, said: “If you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose; you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”
He went on to qualify his comments, which were made in response to a hypothesis that linked the falling crime rate to a rising abortion rate. Aborting black babies, he continued, would be “an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down”.
So, despite these handicaps, now 20 years past, Bill Bennett is making a comeback. Everyone deserves a chance to rehabilitate themselves. Even Bill Bennett.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (left) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (right).
Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource & Gage Skidmore/Flickr
There’s a saying in politics that most people will vote for the candidate they’d rather have a beer with. I’ve been thinking about this a lot after hearing that California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis agreed to a televised debate.
Personally, I’m dreading it. Our national political discourse has already degenerated below the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). It’s impossible to escape the constant fighting in the press, social media and text chains of family and friends.
I think it’d be more interesting if Gavin and Ron had to explain their views on a topic like education over drinks. I started to imagine what it would be like to be stuck between them in my local bar.
They were already there when I walked in. DeSantis was dressed in his Navy intelligence officer uniform. He was nursing a vodka soda and kept furtively scanning the crowd for threats. Newsom was in the seat to my left and halfway through an expensive wine that he’d obviously brought with him.
Both were staring at the local news on TV. When it started playing a story about the learning that kids had lost during the pandemic, DeSantis pointed at the screen and said, “That’s what happens when your politicians let teachers’ unions shut down schools for two years. In Florida, we prioritized our kids and parents.”
Hearing this, Newsom snorted and said, “In California, we prioritized safety. Florida ignored the science and made dangerous decisions that put everyone at risk.”
“What a load of crap,” said DeSantis. “We had just about the same mortality rates and kept our schools and businesses open. You kept them closed and forced people to wear masks long after everyone got vaccinated.”
“At least we believed in vaccination,” yelled Newsom. “You guys were taking deworming pills for horses.”
I laughed at the joke and said to Newsom, “You’re right. The anti-vax, horse deworming pills and other conspiracy lunacy kept us from getting back to normal.” Then I turned to DeSantis, “But you’re right that California, like many blue states went overboard with school shutdowns and severely damaged kids’ learning and mental health. The state and local leaders who should have advocated for those students, especially the most vulnerable ones, did nothing and that should forever stain their consciences.”
Newsom looked shocked that I wasn’t in total agreement with him. After all, Californians, especially those in the Bay Area, are only supposed to think one way. His silence inspired the DeSantis to start another line of attack. “Truth is, it wouldn’t matter if they’d kept the schools closed. The kids in them weren’t learning anything anyway. Florida is in the top five nationally in reading and math and our kids were years ahead of California students before the pandemic. That’s why so many of your parents are leaving your state and choosing ours.”
Newsom took a huge slug of red wine and snorted, “Our kids learn what your kids aren’t allowed to like ethnic studies and African American history. We teach the truth. You whitewash it.”
I looked to my left and raised a toast. “Great line,” I said. “But he,” pointing to my right, “has another good point. We are way behind Florida and many other states in teaching reading and math. They’ve been at this work for years. We don’t even have a state-wide reading and math strategy. I think it’s amazing that we have an ethnic studies requirement but what’s the point if our students can’t read the books that tell our nation’s story, good and bad?”
DeSantis downed his vodka soda and pumped his fist.
DeSantis looked furious. “Of course, they can say gay,” he said. “What they can’t do is have any discussions of sex before third grade or indoctrinate them into critical race theory, so they hate their country and white people. Our anti-woke agenda is overwhelmingly supported by parents and voters in Florida and nationally.”
“It’s just more censorship,” said the Newsom. “You deny the reality of our nation’s history and human sexuality.”
I complimented Newsom for another good line and then said to DeSantis. “You make some good points. The language police are miserable, self-righteous scolds and the CRT people clearly overreached by describing every white person as privileged and racist. Parents should know what their kids are being taught in the earliest grades, but there’s a difference between talking about sexual acts and describing family structures that include gay and lesbian parents. You seem hellbent on delegitimizing those.”
“And don’t forget how they treat transgender people. That’s even worse,” said Newsom.
“So, we should let them play women’s sports?” said DeSantis.
“Yes. And use the bathroom of the sex they identify with,” said Newsom.
“Hold on,” I said. “I think that most people agree that letting transgender males play women’s sports is unfair. But there appears to be active effort to deny their existence as human beings, which just seems cruel,” I said. “Who cares about how they identify or what bathrooms they use?”
This seemed to make them equally angry. They turned away from me, which was fine because I’d had enough of being stuck in the middle. As I paid for my beer, I wondered what I’d do if I had to choose between these guys in an election.
I mostly leaned to the left, but Newsom hadn’t shown political courage when many urban school districts refused to open many months after mass vaccination, nor done much to improve teaching and learning; but he said all the right things.
On the right side, DeSantis had prioritized students and families during the pandemic and his students were doing much better academically; but everything he did came with a dose of 1984 and a whiff of Voldemort.
Then there was the fact that neither of them drank beer.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Let’s face it. “Republican” is now the very meaning of immoral and all what being immoral implies. Recognizing, of course, all of us are imperfect in varying ways—the reality of life. Still, why would any self-proclaimed Christian or other supposedly moral person even think to vote for a Republican in these times?
EJ: What does being immoral imply?
AI: Being immoral generally implies behaving in ways that go against established moral principles or ethical standards. It’s not just about breaking rules—it’s about violating ideas of right and wrong that a society, culture, or individual holds sacred.
Here’s what that can include:
Disregard for others’ well-being: Acting selfishly, cruelly, or with intent to harm.
Violation of social norms: Lying, stealing, cheating—anything that undermines trust or fairness.
Lack of conscience or guilt: Feeling no remorse for actions that hurt others.
Ignoring responsibilities or duties: Especially when those duties are rooted in ethical obligation (like neglecting a child or abusing power).
Important nuance: Morality isn’t one-size-fits-all. What’s considered immoral in one culture or belief system might not be in another. That’s why philosophers love debating this stuff—where do we draw the line between personal freedom and ethical behavior?
Suspended Chico State biology professor David Stachura “made a credible threat of violence” against two colleagues who cooperated in an investigation that found he had a sexual affair with a student, a judge found in a tentative ruling released Friday that orders him to stay off campus for three years.
Protection of “the entire Chico State community is warranted given the nature of the threats and the events that have transpired,” Judge Virginia Gingery wrote in a 13-page decision that, when made final, will grant the university a workplace violence restraining order against Stachura, who witnesses said threatened a mass shooting on campus.
In addition to professors Emily Fleming and Kristen Gorman, Gingery also extended protection to biology lecturer Betsey Tamietti, graduate student Jackelin Villalobos and members of Fleming’s and Tamietti’s families. The judge also banned Stachura from owning firearms for three years.
Stachura’s arguments against the order were “unavailing,” Gingery wrote, including his claims that Chico State sought the order based only in reaction to news stories about the threats.
The restraining order is “warranted, necessary and justified based on (Stachura’s)” conduct the judge wrote.
Orders first identified as tentative such as the one Gingery released Friday are all but certain to be made final under California court rules. The Butte County Superior Court’s website did not list a hearing date Friday where that would happen.
Stachuara’s lawyer, Kasra Parsad, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither did Chico State officials.
Parsad told the judge during a hearing in July that if the restraining order were granted it would likely destroy Stachura’s academic career. He is an expert in fish biology, specializing in zebrafish and stem-cell research.
The ruling comes following a two-part hearing that began in April as part of the fallout of revelations made public last year that Stachura had a prohibited sexual affair with a student in 2020 and allegedly threatened to kill the professors who cooperated in a university investigation of the matter.
EdSource reported on Dec. 8 that the investigation found that Stachura and the student had sex in his office that could be heard through the walls. Stachura agreed to a settlement of the matter that included suspension without pay for a third of the 2021 spring semester. He has repeatedly denied the 2020 affair but has admitted he is currently romantically involved with the now-former student.
The revelations roiled the 13,000-student campus in the northern Sierra foothills, resulting in several mass meetings and calls for Stachura’s removal. Provost Debra Larson, who signed off on the settlement in the sex case, resigned within days. The school also revoked an “outstanding professor” award it gave Stachura for the 2020-21 academic year.
But it was the gun threats — at a time when the country is plagued with mass shootings in schools and elsewhere — that caused both students and faculty to express deep fears.
As the sex investigation unfolded in 2020, Stachura allegedly told his estranged wife, Miranda King, that he’d bought weapons and ammunition — including hollow-point bullets, with the intention of killing Fleming and Gorman.
King revealed the alleged threats in an application for a domestic violence restraining order in the midst of a deeply contentious divorce. King’s lawyer alerted Fleming and Gorman.
A biology lecturer, Tamietti, revealed that Stachura allegedly spoke to her about committing gun violence in the biology department. At a Dec. 12 campuswide meeting, Tamietti quoted Stachura as telling her, “If I wanted you guys dead, you’d be dead. I am a doer. If I do go on a shooting spree, maybe I’ll pass your office. I am not sure.”
Stachura, in both the divorce case and the current case, has claimed he told King that he had a nightmare about killing his colleagues and had no intention of acting violently. He has repeatedly said Tamietti is lying because he ended a friendship with her when she didn’t support him after King revealed the alleged threats.
Stachura sued both King and Tamietti for libel. But the case against Tamietti was dismissed when another judge ruled in June that her statement at the meeting was a matter of public interest. Court records show Stachura dropped his suit against King last month. Their divorce case remains ongoing.
Gorman, Fleming, Tamietti and Villalobos all testified of a deep fear of Stachura.
Stachura testified twice. Much of his testimony centered on Tamietti, with whom he said he had “a really weird relationship.”
He testified that after the date she claimed he threatened a shooting in the biology department in November 2021, she continued to email and text him even after he sent her “a dear John email” ending their friendship. Her contacts with him, he claimed, showed the threat was fabricated.
But Tamietti testified in July that she felt safer by staying in communication with Stachura, a point Deputy Attorney General Shanna McDaniel reiterated in her closing statement.
Stachura’s lawyer said the women named in the restraining order are “afraid of (Stachura) based on some article. I don’t believe that for the last three years, they have been terrified of him.”
Parsad also told Gingery that a three-year order restraining him from stepping foot on campus would ruin Stachura’s career. “He has worked very hard in his career, and I don’t think any university would hire him (with a workplace violence restraining order) on his record.”
It was not immediately clear Friday what action the university will now take. Court records show it opened another investigation of Stachura in March that focuses, in part, on whether he was dishonest during the investigation of his affair with the then-student.
Gingery seemed to key on Stachura’s repeated denials of the affair as undermining his credibility. She noted that in testimony, he had even claimed the investigation of the affair “came back negative” despite the fact that an investigator found the affair occurred and Stachura entered into a settlement with the university that resulted in his pay being temporarily reduced as discipline.
Michael Weber of the Chico Enterprise-Record contributed to this story.
Santa Maria, California. Sol Messeguer who works with Fighting Back Santa Maria, a non-profit agency that provides services to homeless youth and families in Santa Maria.
Credit: Iris Schneider/EdSource
This fall my son lost a classmate to the stigma of being unhoused. The family lost their home during the pandemic when a neighbor’s apartment caught fire, leaving their unit uninhabitable. However, what pushed my son’s classmate out of his seventh grade class and into another school were the taunts from his classmates for wearing the same clothes and coming to school without being showered.
My son’s school did attempt to address this situation. For example, when teachers heard students saying mean things, they would ask the offending student to repeat the comment. The students would not repeat taunts. This approach was meant to signal that this type of language is not OK. However, it fails to address the harm caused by the comments or to support the classmate. Addressing bullying in this fashion doesn’t prevent similar comments in the future. Furthermore, bystanders who witness the bullying also fear being bullied.
Not surprisingly, the entire class was aware of the bullying, yet most remained silent. My son’s classmate understood the students bullying him had their own anxieties and frustrations. He understood them because of his own experiences with instability, feeling stuck and isolation. He understood that his classmates who were unkind to him did not have words to express their frustrations in constructive ways; instead, they looked for someone “weak to pick on.” (His words. Not mine). I was surprised by his awareness and understanding of human behavior, particularly his compassion for those who bullied him and those who remained silent. Unfortunately, hostility toward students without a home is not unique to one school or school district. It is part of the general hostility toward such people.
In May, a public meeting about the 7th Avenue Village (a Homekey project in Los Angeles County’s Hacienda Heights designed to get 142 people off the streets and into a home) had to be shut down when it got out of hand. At recent school board meetings, some have voiced opposition to the project such as this comment: “Protect our kids, our residences, our community, and our businesses.” Interestingly, the commenter seems to be requesting the Hacienda La Puente school board to protect “us” (housed people) from “them” (the unhoused).
Another commenter quoted a school board guiding principle emphasizing building a “safe environment” for the student. He urged board members to “think about students first, not other issues, (not the) homeless issue.” There seems to be a lack of recognition that there are students without housing attending our schools and living in our communities.
It is difficult for students to learn when they do not feel psychologically, physically or emotionally safe. Housed and unhoused students are dealing with a lot and need to express their feelings, fears and frustrations about things they don’t have any control over.
Here are some things districts must do to create learning environments to support all students:
All students, housed and unhoused alike, as well as parents, guardians and caregivers, need to be taught to deal with anxiety and frustrations and how to stand with those who are being bullied.
Districts must invest in training for school site leaders, teachers and families to adopt practices such as restorative justice circles, bystander training and ally programs. Districts need to improve communication about the services available for students who are homeless. A student’s situation can change, leaving them unhoused and unaware of services such as laundry or shower facilities that may be available. Schools should consider waiving fees for students who are homeless so they can participate in after-school activities. (Students’ attendance improves when they feel a connection to the school).
School board members need to acknowledge that the district is part of a larger community dealing with a growing homeless population because of a lack of affordable housing. The board should direct the superintendent to create systemic change and to demonstrate to the community their commitment to supporting the learning of all students.
As parents, we chose this school because of the dual immersion program. We want our kids to grow up to be global citizens, to be able “to meet the challenges and opportunities of a changing world.” One of the skills we expect of our kids is to be able to advocate for what is right, including speaking up against bullying.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
This is extremely awkward for MAGA World, because one of their obsessions was the failure of the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. Those files, they assumed, would contain the long list of names of powerful men who participated in Epstein’s orgies with underage girls. It would also contain the flight logs of Epstein’s private airplane(s), including the names of everyone who visited Epstein’s private island, officially named Little James Island, but unofficially called “Pedo Island.” The files might also contain the videos of prominent men taking advantage of young girls, which is a felony. Epstein had video cameras in all of his residences.
Trump would like everyone to stop talking about Epstein. On national television, he denounced the MAGA followers who want to see the Epstein files. He denounced them as “stupid” and “weaklings,” and he said he didn’t want their support anymore.
Fact is, no matter what’s in the Epstein files (assuming they have not been incinerated) won’t hurt Trump. He may lose some rabid fans. He will still be president until the election of 2028.
But the Epstein story won’t go away. MAGA was encouraged to believe that Democrats were hiding them and Trump would release them. Trump now says that the files shouldn’t be released because innocent people might be implicated. Or he says the files don’t exist. Or he says that the files were created by Obama, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and Biden.
House Democrats offered a resolution demanding the release of the Epstein files. Republicans voted the resolution down, putting them into the awkward position of defending Attorney General Pam Bondi’s claim that the files don’t exist. but if they do exist, they should not be released.
Bondi made this claim after saying on national television that the Epstein list of clients was “on her desk.” Maybe she confused her grocery shopping list with Epstein’s list of clients.
Trump, Epstein and friendsParty time!! Only the best!
Ed Johnson says: 
