How the Trump Administration is Creating Fear by Using “Ready-Fire-Aim” Tactics
Listen to a summary and analysis of this Blog on the Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive podcast on Spotify.
Hosted by popular AI Educators Angela Jones and Davey Johnson, they provide enlightening perspectives on the implications of this Blog for all of Education.
[CLICK HERE to Listen to this Popular Podcast]
(Follow this bi-monthly Podcast to receive automatic e-mail
notices with each NEW episode!)
_ _ _ _ _
[CLICK HERE to read this Blog
on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction: Are We Living in a Charlie Brown and Lucy van Pelt World?
As a school psychologist who works in schools nationwide, today’s recent world feels like a surreal dream where you are teetering on the edge of a cliff, risking impending doom.
But the impending threats to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education are real. . . and the attacks on many existing programs and grants—some in the name of eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives—have already occurred.
At the same time, since January 20, 2025. . . as well as for the four years between January 20, 2017 and the same date in 2021. . . our political, professional, and personal worlds have sometimes seemed like a series of installments from Charles Schulz’s Peanuts comic strip.
Specifically, I am referencing the annually-recurring drama between Charlie Brown and Lucy van Pelt as Charlie lines up to kick a field goal, and Lucy constantly pulls the ball away—leaving Charlie on the ground, frustrated, but eternally optimistic that the next kick will be successful.
For almost 50 years, this drama ensued between Charlie Brown and Lucy.
Indeed, the first time Charlie “hit the deck” was on November 16, 1952, two years after Schultz began publishing Peanuts. And, after reappearing every football season, the last time was in 1999. (Schultz retired the comic strip on January 3, 2000 after a stroke the previous November.)
While there were variations on
the theme, Charlie Brown never successfully kicked the ball.
_ _ _ _ _
The point here—to return to “reality”—is that Educators (maybe, everyone) need to recognize that:
· Whether we like it or not, we are currently the “Charlie Browns” in a game with the “Lucys” in Washington, D.C.’s current Administration;
· We need to understand that, while we must stay in the game, we also need to relax and not “jump offsides” by educationally responding—through knee-jerk changes in policy, procedure, or practice—too quickly to threats or attacks; and
·
We need to maintain a realistic sense of short-term and
long-term optimism that (a) the “educational crisis of the day” can and will be
resolved over time, and (b) the focus on high-quality instruction, sustained
and meaningful student learning, and preparing the next generation of leaders
is our most essential responsibility.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
DEI Practices in Education: “Ready-Fire-Aim”
Since January, the current Administration has operated, in a number of spheres, using “Ready-Fire-Aim” tactics.
Psychologically or functionally, we can all debate why this is occurring, whether it is random or calculated, and if there are overt or covert strategic or tactical goals.
And while these analyses are the sensationalized focus of too cable news shows, panels, and interviews. . . what really matters is the often-delayed “Aim” part of the equation.
Let’s explore two DEI and
education-related “Fires.”
_ _ _ _ _
Race-Based Discrimination and DEI in Schools
The Fire. Last month (February 14, 2025), the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a “Dear Colleague” letter to schools saying that Title VI, the federal civil rights law that protects against race-based discrimination, prohibits schools from “using race in decisions pertaining to.... administrative support” and “all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.”
[Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance.]
The Letter cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University (SFFA), which clarified that the use of racial preferences in college admissions is unlawful, and set forth a framework for evaluating the use of race by state actors and entities covered by Title VI.
But the OCR Letter, and the U.S. Department of Education, took this Court decision way further. It asserted:
Although SFFA addressed admissions decisions, the
Supreme Court’s holding applies more broadly. At its core, the test is simple:
If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it
treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational
institution violates the law.
Federal law thus prohibits covered entities from using
race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation,
financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline,
housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and
campus life. Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate or
segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on
race.
. . . DEI programs, for example, frequently preference
certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique
moral burdens that others do not. Such programs stigmatize students who belong
to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes. Consequently,
they deny students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school.
The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and
covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s
educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on
the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial
balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court
precedent.
This letter provides notice of the Department’s
existing interpretation of federal law. Additional legal guidance will follow
in due course. The Department will vigorously enforce the law on equal terms as
to all preschool, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational
institutions, as well as state educational agencies, that receive financial
assistance.
The Department intends to take appropriate measures to
assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the
understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from
today’s date, including antidiscrimination requirements that are a condition of
receiving federal funding.
All educational institutions are advised to: (1)
ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law;
(2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying
on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all
reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are
being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race.
Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil
rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal
funding.
_ _ _ _ _
The Reaction. Even though the Letter couched its potential actions in “soft language” (using words like: “beginning no later than,” “intend,” “may,” and “consistent with applicable law”), the response of some schools across the country was to immediately change policies, procedures, and/or practices.
Some did this preventatively—wanting to protect their schools from costly investigations, within district and across community controversies, and fiscal or other sanctions. Others politically agreed with the statements above, and used them for permission—changing policies they had long wanted to change.
The Aim. But, critically, just two weeks (February 28, 2025) after the Dear Colleague letter above, the same U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights released a Frequently Asked Questions About Racial Preferences and Stereotypes Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act document:
to provide helpful information about how the (SFFA) decision applies to racial classifications, racial preferences, and racial stereotypes as well as how OCR will interpret the ruling in its enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations.
While the proverbial “jury is still out,” it appears that OCR has back-tracked and softened its “aim”—recognizing that it must still abide by the actual Title VI statute, and relevant case law and Supreme Court decisions.
K-12 Dive (March 3, 2025) stated:
The U.S. Department of Education late last week
clarified its stance on diversity, equity and inclusion policies in schools,
saying that racial preferences and other forms of diversity and inclusion
efforts are indeed allowed in some situations.
According to the department’s new FAQ, “Schools with
programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of
the world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are
open to all students regardless of race.” Celebrating Black History Month,
International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or other similar events are also
allowed, the guidance clarifies.
“Whether a policy or program violates Title VI does
not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or
‘inclusion,’” the nine-page document said.
The Q&A guidance seems to ease the
administration’s strict stance on schools’ DEI efforts, which school and
district employees had initially feared would also limit inclusive programs and
practices like student affinity groups, cultural observances and culturally
reflective curriculum in addition to impacting race-conscious school
admissions.
_ _ _ _ _
As noted above, some K-12 districts and universities immediately responded to the February 14, 2025 Letter’s “Fire,” rather than waiting until the February 28, 2025 re-“Aim.”
While I understand the (intended) fear of the former communication, this fear may have displaced policies, procedures, and/or practices that were legal, equitable, historically-defensible, and beneficial for the common good.
Hopefully, we can
all learn from this situation.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Teaching About and Celebrating Racial (and Other) Diversity in Schools
The Fire. The February 14, 2025 Office for Civil Rights “Dear Colleague” letter also stated—contrary to a number of studies (see my February 8, 2025 Blog):
Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon “systemic and structural racism” and advanced discriminatory policies and practices. Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them—particularly during the last four years—under the banner of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (“DEI”), smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.
The Aim. This also was softened by the February 28, 2025 Frequently Asked Questions About Racial Preferences and Stereotypes Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act document, as it noted:
. . . schools with programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all students regardless of race. Nor would educational, cultural, or historical observances—such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events—that celebrate or recognize historical events and contributions, and promote awareness, so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination. However, schools must consider whether any school programming discourages members of all races from attending, either by excluding or discouraging students of a particular race or races, or by creating hostile environments based on race for students who do participate.
Moreover, this document reiterated the long-standing process—codified in federal statute—for withholding funds from schools:
If
OCR determines that a school failed to comply with the civil rights laws that
it enforces, OCR will contact the school and will attempt to secure its
willingness to negotiate a voluntary resolution agreement. If the school agrees
to resolve the complaint, OCR and the school will negotiate a written
resolution agreement to be signed by the school that describes the specific
remedial actions it will take to address the area(s) of noncompliance
identified by OCR. OCR will monitor implementation of the resolution
agreement’s terms.
If
a school is unwilling to negotiate a resolution agreement, OCR will inform the
school of the consequences, which may result in OCR initiating enforcement
through administrative proceedings or referring the case to the Department of
Justice for judicial proceedings.
_ _ _ _ _
A number of recent Education Week articles have expanded this point:
The
executive branch can’t pull funding unilaterally. . .
Under
nondiscrimination laws, including Title IX and Title VI, the department’s Office
for Civil Rights would have to investigate allegations, find a violation, and
also find that the school is refusing to address the violation.
The
department would recommend a funding termination, and there would be a waiting
period, during which Congress could override the department’s attempt to
terminate funds.
Through
case law and regulation, the department can’t cut all funding to a school,
either, to keep from harming innocent recipients, and to prevent vindictive or
punitive use. The funding termination—which is rare—would have to target the
particular program where OCR has found a violation.
School
districts can also appeal funding termination decisions.
_ _ _ _ _
Thus, once again, the “Aim”—despite it coming inappropriately last in the current “Ready-Fire-Aim” Presidential and U.S. Department of Education mode of operation—eventually put out the “Fire.”
· The Executive Branch cannot independently withhold federal funds from a school.
·
And the Legislative and Judicial “check and balance”
oversight of the Executive Branch—established by our Founding Fathers—remains
intact.
_ _ _ _ _
Our Advice:
· Recognize that this “Charlie Brown game” will not let up.
· Recognize that the Administration will continue to use its provocative “Ready-Fire-Aim” approach to manipulate professional and public opinion. . . while creating chaos, confusion, anxiety, and fear. . . in the hope that some schools will prematurely change their current sound and effective policies to those that align with the Administration’s political agenda.
· And, instead. . . let’s support each other to Recognize the reality of what the Administration can do and cannot do. . . as we wait for the hyperbole to ebb, and the laws of our Land to flow.
Said a different way: Let’s stop “teeing-up” the football—ending up on our collective asses.
Let’s not let fear drive us to
make unnecessary policy, procedure, and practice decisions and/or changes
before until “all four quarters” have been played.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
We Need to Practice What We Preach: A Call to Action
Now it’s time to apply the Title VI “Ready-Aim-Fire” lessons above to the next threat.
On March 3, 2025, Linda McMahon was confirmed by Congress as our country’s 13th Secretary of Education. On the same day, she published a speech that she made to the staff working in the U.S. Department of Education (“Our Department’s Final Mission”) on the Department’s official website.
While not explicitly verbalizing her charge from President Trump to close the Department, most know that an Executive Order in this regard has already been drafted for his signature.
And yet, most also know that closing the U.S. Department of Education will take an act of Congress.
To this end, on January 31, 2025, Representative Thomas Massie from Kentucky introduced H.R. 899 with 31 Republican co-sponsors.
The entire Bill consists of one line: “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2026.”
To become law, this Bill will need to pass both the House and the Senate, before it is signed by the President.
In the
53-Republican to 47-Democrat Senate, it will need 60 votes to pass.
_ _ _ _ _
Ready-Aim-Fire. While it is incredibly unlikely that the Bill will pass in the Senate, rather than expend a lot of emotional energy worrying about the Department’s closing—and its implications, we recommend that you take action.
· Call both your Representative in the House and your two Senators, and tell them how you would have them vote.
· During the same call, tell your Congressional Leaders three ways to improve the educational process in this country. . . from Washington, D.C. through your State Capital to your Local Education Agency.
· Finally, look at your district and/or school(s) and think of three ways to improve their educational processes—either for the remainder of this school year or in preparation for the next.
And then act!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A Charlie Brown Post-Script
When researching for this Blog, we came across an October 8, 2014 article by Eric Schulmiller titled:
“All Your Life,
Charlie Brown. All Your Life.
The complete history of Lucy’s pulling the football away.”
In the article, Schulmiller writes:
On the comics pages for years, one sign of fall loomed
above all others. I’m speaking, of course, of the annual Saga of the Swipe:
Lucy, Charlie Brown, and that infernal football.
This sacred autumnal drama, repeated nearly every
September or October for over 50 years, has
become our collectively-acknowledged paradigm for the
uneasy tension between trust and betrayal, hope and despair.
To a kid, of course, it was the moment of failure that
mattered—not the metaphor. No single act better encapsulated a child’s feeling
of powerlessness, and I felt Charlie Brown’s frustration and disappointment
with every bone in my body.
As the years went by, Lucy’s seemingly compulsive need
to torment poor Charlie began to gnaw at me. I started to wonder—what drove
Lucy to unrepentantly torture Charlie Brown in this fashion, year after year?
(To answer the question,) I began at the beginning,
hunting for and examining each (Peanuts) football comic in
seriatim, from the 1950s onward, to see if a larger pattern might emerge from
Schulz’s kick chronicles.
What I discovered was a surprisingly complex story
told over decades, with twists, turns, and evolving character motivations that
are far richer than might appear from a yearly glance at the funny pages.
(W)hy did Lucy start yanking the football away in the
first place?
It’s true that the first time Lucy pulls the
football away from Charlie Brown, it’s an innocent gesture—she simply doesn’t
want Charlie Brown’s dirty shoes to mar her brand new football.
In fact, in the same strip, Lucy even lets Charlie
Brown try again, without pulling away the ball. (Charlie Brown trips over
the ball anyway, of course.)
But just a few years later, in 1953, is the true
origin story for Lucy’s sadistic game.
In this
pivotal strip, Lucy herself struggles to kick a football.
Over and over she tries to punt the ball and flubs her kicks. And what does
Charlie Brown do? He publicly and cruelly mocks her.
Charlie
Brown: You’re hopeless! That was the worst kick I’ve ever seen!
Lucy: Well after all … I’m just a little girl, you know …
Charlie Brown: Little girls don’t belong on football fields! Go home!
Lucy: I don’t understand … I was the star fullback in nursery school …
Charlie Brown: Well, don’t stand around here! GO ON HOME!! Get out of here!
Is there any wonder why Lucy would choose to embarrass
Charlie Brown with a football year after year? Her humiliation at the hands of
Chuck was a formative experience in the young girl’s life.
But the story goes even deeper.
Twice in the week before this early
football-themed comic appeared, Schulz ran strips that featured Charlie Brown
failing to kick the football all on his own. First, he simply misses
the ball, and a few days later, in a darkly existential moment, we see a
forlorn Charlie Brown dwarfed by the gigantic goal posts under which his kick
has fallen pathetically short.
A week later, in the pivotal comic quoted above,
Charlie Brown transfers his feelings of im-punt-ence by lashing out at poor
little Lucy.
_ _ _ _ _
Many political writers—including politicians like former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie—recall the April 27, 2011 White House Correspondents' Association dinner where President Obama roasted (publicly embarrassed) Donald Trump as a pay-back for his obsessive quest to see proof that Obama was born in the United States.
These writers also document how incensed Mr. Trump was at the time, and how it motivated him to seek the Presidency of the United States.
In a recent book, Christie
said that Trump was “beside himself with fury. He was pissed off like I’d never
seen him.”
_ _ _ _ _
Could it be that President Trump’s “Ready-Fire-Aim” approach to politics parallels Lucy’s decision to perennially embarrass Charlie Brown with a football year after year? . . . but that we are now the proxies for Obama?
While we will never know “the truth”. . . at the very least, let’s not get trapped in the Charlie Brown role.
Let’s live beyond the game.
Remember: A
football game. . . like a Presidential term. . . only has four quarters.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
We remember that, during the last No Child Left Behind years, the U.S. Department of Education had “policies” where school principals and teachers were supposed to lose their jobs if their students were not demonstrating enough academic proficiency.
While this created (unproductive) anxiety and angst across the country, in the end, I do not know a single principal or teacher who lost their jobs because their school was not proficient.
Indeed. . . those that lost their jobs lost their jobs because of their own poor performance. . . not the collective performance of their schools.
My point is:
Educators should not professionally fear U.S. Department of Education policies
that are not rooted in law, effective practice, and short- and long-term educational
benefits to our students.
_ _ _ _ _
To this end, this Blog uses fifty years of Charlie Brown lining up to kick a field goal—only to have Lucy pull the ball away, leaving Charlie in the grass his back—as a metaphor representing President Trump and the U.S. Department of Education’s “Ready-Fire-Aim” approach to changing educational policy in this country.
Specifically—and especially in the area of Race and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)—the Administration has “fired off” a number of executive orders and legal interpretations telling schools that a lack of compliance will result in the loss of federal funds. They have subsequently “re-aimed” (through amendments or retractions) their threats, recognizing that they either do not have the legal authority to implement them, or a Court of Law would not support their authority.
At the same time, these threats have created chaos, confusion, anxiety, and fear. . . and some schools have prematurely changed their current sound and effective policies to those that align with the Administration’s political agenda.
We made specific recommendations on how to respond to these threats, while maintaining the integrity of the educational process and our responsibilities to our students.
We concluded by revealing the history
of how the Charlie Brown and Lucy van Pelt dynamic began, and encouraged
Educators to apply the lessons detailed in this Log to the “next” threat that
hopes to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.
_ _ _ _ _
The “Improving Education Today” Podcast: A New Professional Development Resource Complementing this Blog
This past January, we announced a new partnership and resource for you.
The partnership is with popular AI Educators, Davey Johnson and Angela Jones. . . and the resource is their Podcast:
Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive
For each published bimonthly Blog, Davey and Angela summarize and analyze the Blog in their free-wheeling and “no-holds-barred” Podcast. . . addressing the topic’s importance to “education today,” and discussing their recommendations on how to apply the information so that all students, staff, and schools benefit.
You can find the Podcast that accompanies this Blog message at the following link:
Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive | Podcast on Spotify
Davey and Angela have also created a Podcast Archive consisting of all of this year’s Blog (Volume 3), as well as those from 2024 (Volume 2), and 2023 (Volume 1).
The Podcasts are posted on Spotify, and you can “Follow” the Podcast Series so that you will be automatically notified whenever a new Podcast is posted.
Many districts and schools are using the Podcasts in their Leadership Teams and/or PLCs to keep everyone abreast of new issues and research in education, and to stimulate important discussions and decisions regarding the best ways to enhance student, staff, and school outcomes.
If you would like to follow a Podcast up with a free one-hour consultation with me, just contact me and we will get it on our schedules.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Best,
Howie
[CLICK HERE to read this Blog
on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
[To listen to a synopsis and analysis of this Blog on the “Improving
Education Today: The Deep Dive” podcast hosted by popular AI
Educators, Angela Jones and Davey Johnson on Spotify: CLICK
HERE for Angela and Davey’s Enlightening Discussion]
No comments:
Post a Comment